[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: I hope the House will join me in welcoming to the Serjeant’s Chair the new Serjeant at Arms on the occasion of his first Prime Minister’s questions, which is an exceptional day—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—and an exceptional response. Secondly, the House might wish to join me in warmly congratulating Kim Sears and Andy Murray on the birth of their baby daughter.

BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Committee of Selection

Ordered,
	That Heidi Alexander be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Jessica Morden be added.—(Anne Milton, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Spoliation Advisory Panel

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report from Sir Donnell Deeny, Chairman of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, dated 10 February 2016, in respect of a gothic relief in ivory now in the possession of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.—(Stephen Barclay.)

Tommy Sheppard: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: We do not take points of order now. Points of order come after questions and statements.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Single Market

Neil Carmichael: What assessment he has made of the value to the economy in Scotland of UK membership of the single market.

David Mundell: Mr Speaker, I am sure that everyone, particularly in Scotland, will share your warm wishes to Andy Murray and Kim Sears on the birth of their daughter.
	Latest official statistics published last month show that in 2014 around 42% of all Scottish international exports were destined for countries within the European Union. The value of these exports is estimated at around £11.6 billion.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that the package that the Prime Minister will discuss in greater detail with his colleagues on the European Council will bring about much needed reform and be a catalyst for further reform in the future, thus making it quite clear that the single market is good for the United Kingdom and, of course, good for Scotland?

David Mundell: In a reformed EU, we could have the best of both worlds—access to the single market while not being a member of the euro or Schengen. I believe that would be good for Scotland and good for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Angus Robertson: The single European market and the ability to affect the legislation that governs it is hugely important to the Scottish economy, especially the exporting sectors such as whisky. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, regardless of the ongoing negotiations, he will personally campaign for Scotland and the UK to remain within the European Union?

David Mundell: The right hon. Gentleman will know and will, I am sure, be pleased to have heard that the leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, Ruth Davidson, has expressed exactly that position.

Angus Robertson: The good news is that I get a second bite of the cherry, so perhaps at the end of this question the Secretary of State will answer my question about whether he will support Scotland and the UK remaining within the European Union. Making a positive case for remaining in the EU will be crucial in the weeks and months ahead, so will the Secretary of State give a commitment not to repeat the grinding negativity of project fear and condemn ridiculous scare stories such as those from the Prime Minister on immigration and the refugee camp in Calais?

David Mundell: I will make my position known when the negotiations have been concluded, but I make this offer to the right hon. Gentleman: if the reform package goes ahead and if I am campaigning to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom I would be delighted to join him, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and the First Minister on a platform to make that case.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Last night I had the pleasure of meeting the Scotch Whisky Association, which introduced me to for some of the finer products from across the border. Simpsons Malt in my constituency produces an enormous amount of the malted barley sold across the border in Scotland to produce this whisky. Does my right hon. Friend agree that expansion into new markets that have nothing to do with the EU is the growth area for the whisky industry?

David Mundell: There are tremendous opportunities for development of the Scotch whisky industry. I think that the Scottish Government, the United Kingdom
	Government and all parties in the House are united on that. When the President of China was in the United Kingdom recently, we had the opportunity to present his wife with a bottle of her favourite malt whisky from Scotland, and both he and his good lady were able to make clear how important the product is to developing markets in China.

Kirsten Oswald: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Scottish businesses about the possibility of a UK exit from the European Union, and what concerns have those businesses expressed about the impact it would have on their ability to gain access to, and export to, the single market?

David Mundell: The clearest message that I receive from businesses in Scotland is that they want a short EU referendum campaign so that we can have the minimum amount of uncertainty.

Revised Fiscal Framework

Nicholas Dakin: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Ministers of the Scottish Government on negotiation of a revised fiscal framework for Scotland.

David Mundell: I have regular discussions with the Deputy First Minister to discuss the fiscal framework. The Joint Exchequer Committee met on Monday, and negotiations are ongoing.

Nicholas Dakin: Yesterday the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister listing the issues on which agreement still needed to be reached. They were the method for
	“block grant adjustment…set-up and administration costs, capital and revenue borrowing, fiscal oversight and dispute resolution.”
	Can the Secretary of State confirm that those are all the outstanding issues on which agreement still needs to be reached?

David Mundell: It was established at the start of the discussions that until everything was agreed, nothing was agreed, but considerable progress has been made on all those issues. I was very pleased to learn from the First Minister’s letter that the Finance Secretary would be presenting revised proposals from the Scottish Government. That is what a negotiation involves: it involves both parties presenting revised proposals as the negotiation progresses, and that is exactly what the UK Government are committed to doing.

David Mowat: The starting point of the fiscal framework discussions is the Barnett formula, which means that Scotland’s public spending per capita is 15% higher than the United Kingdom average. Does the Secretary of State believe that that differential will be maintained in perpetuity?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend’s views on the Barnett formula are well known. I do not agree with them, and nor do the Government. The Government’s position is that the formula will remain, even in the post-fiscal framework environment.

Pete Wishart: The negotiations on the fiscal framework are in a very sensitive and fragile state, and we must be very careful about the language that is used. However, the Secretary of State has used language like “ludicrous” and “chancing his arm” when it comes to one party to the negotiations, which is profoundly unhelpful. If the Secretary of State and the Scotland Office have nothing to offer the negotiations, will the Secretary of State vow to stay right out of it, and leave those who want to find a solution to try to get those negotiations fixed?

David Mundell: I find it a little odd to take a lecture from that particular hon. Gentleman on moderate language.
	I do not think anyone can doubt my commitment to ensuring that we have a negotiated fiscal framework, and I am delighted that, in her letter to the Prime Minister, the First Minister set out her strong commitment to achieving such an agreement, because that is the Prime Minister’s position. As I said at the weekend, both sides have done the dance; now let us do the deal.

Kenneth Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to have the successful devolution that we all want, we need a firm and sensible framework for fiscal discipline that will last, and will stand the tests of all the unknown economic vicissitudes that may hit the country? Will he assure us that we will not repeat the mistakes that have been made in Spain, where devolved provinces frequently run up unsustainable debts which they then blame on Madrid, causing great difficulties to Spanish Governments who are seeking recovery?

David Mundell: As my right hon. and learned Friend will recognise, the settlement in Spain is entirely different. I agree with him about the need for a sustainable fiscal framework, but, as the Government have made clear in the negotiations, we are willing to accept a review of the arrangements in a few years to ensure that they stand up to scrutiny, and are seen to be fair to both Scotland and to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Ian Murray: Mr Speaker, I join you in congratulating Andy Murray and Kim Sears on the birth of their baby daughter. However, their baby daughter might be winning Wimbledon by the time we get a deal on the fiscal framework. The UK and Scottish Governments have now been negotiating it for more than six months, which is longer than it took to negotiate the Scotland Bill itself, longer than it took to strike the historic international climate change agreement and longer than it took the G20 leaders to negotiate $1.1 trillion of support for the global economy. It is clearly the indexation model that is contentious, so will the Secretary of State tell the House why he thinks the per capita index model is not appropriate for the indexation of the block grant?

David Mundell: I have made it clear in previous discussions that we are not going to have detailed negotiations on this matter on the Floor of the House. I have also said that I very much welcome the fact that the First Minister has indicated that the Scottish Government are going to bring forward a revised proposal, just as we have done through the negotiations. I believe that we are within touching distance of striking a deal and I remain optimistic that we will do so.

Ian Murray: The Secretary of State says that he will not provide a running commentary on the fiscal framework, yet both Governments are providing exactly that. The respected economist Anton Muscatelli has said of the fiscal framework:
	“I do not understand why it should be such a huge stumbling block.”
	The constitutional expert Jim Gallagher has said:
	“This fiscal framework is an eminently solvable problem.”
	The Prime Minister has spent recent months shuttling around Europe trying to strike a deal on EU reform. Is it not time that he got involved and showed the same enthusiasm for striking a fair deal for Scotland on our own Union as he has shown for the European Union?

David Mundell: The Prime Minister is committed to securing a deal. He has spoken to Nicola Sturgeon about this issue and they have had productive discussions. They are now involved in an exchange of letters, but they are both quite clear that they now want a deal. I am confident, given the position set out in the letter from the First Minister that the Scottish Government are actively engaging in that negotiation process, as are we, that we will be able to get that deal.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Alberto Costa: What discussions he has had with representatives of the North sea oil and gas industry on Government support for that sector.

David Mundell: On 28 January, the Prime Minister and I held discussions with industry representatives in Aberdeen on further support for the North sea. As a member of the joint ministerial group on oil and gas, I also engage with key stakeholders, such as the Oil and Gas Authority, on a regular basis.

Alberto Costa: Calor Gas has its largest operational UK site in my constituency in South Leicestershire. A number of residents in the Scottish highlands and other rural areas rely on Calor Gas, which receives a large part of its Scottish gas supply from the North sea. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the support that the UK Government are able to provide, we are much better placed to absorb the fall in oil prices than would have been the case had Scotland been an independent country?

David Mundell: I acknowledge the importance of Calor Gas and all those who supply off-the-network energy to people living in rural Scotland. On my hon. Friend’s wider question, he makes an important point about the ability of the United Kingdom as a whole to absorb the change in the oil price.

Eilidh Whiteford: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor about continued funding for seismic surveys on the UK continental shelf?

David Mundell: I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement when he was in Aberdeen of a £20 million contribution to a second round of new seismic surveys.

Alan Duncan: The severity of the collapse in global oil prices carries with it the danger that a number of fields in the North sea will suspend production and perhaps never resume it. Given that this would represent a serious loss of national assets and national infrastructure, may I invite the Secretary of State to have further discussions with the Chancellor in advance of the Budget to try to ensure that these fields are not lost for ever and that they remain an important part of our national economy?

David Mundell: It will not surprise my right hon. Friend to know that that issue was part of the discussion with the Prime Minister, Fergus Ewing from the Scottish Government and representatives of the oil and gas industry at the recent meeting in Aberdeen. The Prime Minister made it very clear that he would look at any specific request or proposal in relation to supporting the industry in the forthcoming Budget.

Welfare Programme

Anne McLaughlin: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the effects of the Government’s welfare programme on social and economic inequalities in Scotland.

Michael Weir: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the effects of the Government’s welfare programme on social and economic inequalities in Scotland.

Priti Patel: On behalf of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland on a regular basis to discuss the devolution of welfare programmes to the Scottish Government; at a meeting just yesterday we discussed the ever-improving labour market in Scotland. I also have regular meetings with my counterparts from the Scottish Government and we have a joint ministerial working group. I will be speaking tomorrow to the Scottish Ministers with responsibility for fair work, and for children and young people.

Anne McLaughlin: The Smith agreement devolved employability funding and services to Scotland, but then the autumn statement cut funding for it by an eye-watering 87%, so that the Scottish Government now have only £7 million with which to deliver those services. Notwithstanding the general acceptance that this was a politically motivated decision, what does the Minister have to say to my constituents, who live in one of the areas of highest deprivation in the whole of the United Kingdom and are, after all, the people this will have the largest impact on?

Priti Patel: I start by hoping that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that in her constituency the claimant count has decreased by 49% since 2010. We have record levels of employment in Scotland. There will be greater devolution for the Scottish Government in welfare, and we would be particularly happy to have discussions with them on employment programmes. Many of those will look at how we take these programmes further to support those who are out of work in Scotland but desperately want to work.

Michael Weir: As a result of the changes from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, thousands of Scots are losing their rights to Motability vehicles. That is particularly devastating in rural areas, where accessible public transport may be limited. Will the Minister end this iniquitous policy?

Priti Patel: As I have said, there will be new powers under the devolution deal, which will also include top-up payments; this is still very much based on welfare payments as well. It will be down to the Scottish Government in particular to get on and start making some of these decisions. They have got the powers coming to them so they will have to start deciding how they want to use them.

Wayne David: It was thanks to Labour peers that the Government’s initial cack-handed and unfair cuts to tax credits were brought to an abrupt end, but we now know that the Government want to introduce new changes to income disregard which will leave 800,000 people on tax credits across the United Kingdom worse off come April. Can the Minister tell the House how many people in Scotland will be affected?

Priti Patel: I will say, as I have previously said when the House has discussed the issues of welfare reform and welfare changes, that we have the Bill going through the other place right now and the changes we are making are to bring fairness and stability to the welfare bill in this country. We know, and we have made it clear, that despite the figures that the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party leverage constantly, people will not be affected and the right kind of transitional support will be put in place.

Employment

Maggie Throup: What steps the Government plan to take to increase the level of employment in Scotland.

Priti Patel: The employment rate in Scotland has never been higher, and it now stands at 74.9%. Our employment support offer will build on that, recognising the changing labour market environment, while delivering value for money to the taxpayer.

Maggie Throup: Erewash has many great examples of businesses whose commercial operations north of the border help to sustain jobs locally, including Rayden Engineering and West Transport. Does the Minister agree that Scotland not only supports jobs for its own population, but creates a great deal of employment across the rest of the United Kingdom?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that record levels of employment in Scotland have clearly benefited her constituency, as there is a crossover in employment opportunities between her constituency and Scotland. With our growing economy, and the strength of our economy, those levels will continue to grow and grow.

Chris Law: Under the SNP Scottish Government, Scotland’s youth employment is at its highest level since 2005, and is 7% higher than that in the rest of the UK. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that he will make representations to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that Scotland receives a fair share of funding from the apprenticeship levy?

Priti Patel: I did not fully hear the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will certainly take it away. I understand that the Department is already looking at that matter.

Mr Speaker: It is a very serious situation if Ministers cannot hear the questions. It is also a considerable discourtesy to the people of Scotland if, when we are discussing these important matters, questions and answers cannot be heard. Let us please try to have a bit of order.

West Coast Main Line

Sue Hayman: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport and Ministers of the Scottish Government on the effect on communities in Scotland of the partial closure of the west coast main line.

David Mundell: I have had a number of discussions with the Department for Transport and others to ensure that the closure of the Lamington viaduct, which in my own constituency, is addressed as quickly as possible. We remain absolutely committed to working together with all parties to reopen the west coast line in the first week of March.

Sue Hayman: I apologise for my lack of voice. The closure of the west coast main line has a huge impact not only on the economy of southern Scotland, but on Cumbria, too, as it is a strategic cross-border crossing on which many businesses in my constituency rely. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that it will be open in the first week of March, as it is so important. Will he confirm that the entirety will be open by 1 March?

David Mundell: I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments because, as she will be aware, my own constituents who use Lockerbie station are among those most affected by these changes. We are determined to get the west coast main line fully reopened in that first week in March.

John Nicolson: The Prime Minister claims that he will get a good deal for Britain in the European Union. Would the Secretary of State like to see the United Kingdom play the same role and have the same powers in the EU that he claims Scotland currently has in the UK?

Mr Speaker: That was quite tangentially related to the west coast main line, but I hope that the dexterity of the Secretary of State will admit of an answer.

David Mundell: Mr Speaker, the west coast main line is one of the most important routes within the United Kingdom to Europe via London. I have set out my position in relation to the EU referendum. If the SNP genuinely wants Scotland to remain in the EU, it is important that, rather than concentrate on process issues, it gets out and campaigns for it.

Devolution and Local Government

Graham Allen: What recent discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on the effect of devolution on the powers and autonomy of Scottish local government; and if he will make a statement.

David Mundell: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to read my speech of 21 December, in which I set out that I fully support the devolution of power from Holyrood to local communities, as Lord Smith recommended in his commission agreement. This is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament to implement, and I encourage them to do so.

Graham Allen: Will the Secretary of State condemn those who use devolution to centralise power in Holyrood—whether it is the centralisation of the police, the fire service, health spending, local government spending, courts, colleges and enterprise companies? Will he ensure that he stands together with those who feel that devolution does not stop at Holyrood, but goes down to the Scottish local authorities and to the Scottish people?

David Mundell: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I can tell him the best way to achieve it, which is, under Ruth Davidson, to elect more Scottish Conservative MSPs to the Scottish Parliament.

Phil Boswell: In the interests of the record, can the Secretary of State confirm that, under the powers that are being devolved as part of the current Scotland Bill, the Scottish Government will be able to vary rates and bands of the Scottish rate of income tax—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State and the Minister could not hear the question because of a rude eruption of noise. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can ask his question again, and perhaps Members will have the common courtesy to allow him to be heard by their own Ministers.

Phil Boswell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are getting used to interruptions. In the interests of the record, can the Secretary of State confirm that, under the powers that are being devolved as part of the Scotland Bill, the Scottish Government will be able to vary rates and bands of the Scottish rate of income tax, allowing the Scottish Government to make progressive choices on these additional powers, and that the half-baked Labour plan to raise Scottish income tax for everyone before these additional powers are transferred—

Mr Speaker: Order. Members need to learn the merits of the blue pencil. If they used the blue pencil and questions were shorter, they would benefit.

David Mundell: The Scottish Parliament will indeed take on those very significant tax powers, which it will be able to use as it sees fit. I hope it will use them to make Scotland a more attractive place for business and commerce and to grow the Scottish economy and the Scottish population.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Fiona Bruce.

Economic Trends

Fiona Bruce: What discussions he has had with business organisations on economic trends in Scotland.

Anna Soubry: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had a number of discussions with business organisations, including the Institute of Directors, the Scotch Whisky Association and Oil and Gas UK. It is because of this Government’s commitment to our long-term economic plan and economic prosperity that we have seen such growth in the Scottish economy. Thank goodness that the good people of Scotland voted to stay within a United Kingdom and reject independence.

Fiona Bruce: Research by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers shows that Scottish shop workers could lose up to £1,300 annually as stores increasingly abandon their additional Sunday pay rates in the light of the proposed Sunday trading regulations. Will the Minister take up these concerns with the Business Secretary?

Anna Soubry: I did not hear all that my hon. Friend said, but I can tell her that we intend to devolve power down to local authorities, so that they make the decisions on what is in the best interests of people locally. That includes local people who may want to shop on a Sunday and the interests of businesses that may want to open more liberally on a Sunday to take full advantage. I think that is a good idea. I hope that my hon. Friend might consider supporting it.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mims Davies: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 February.

David Cameron: I know the whole House has been deeply saddened by the death of Harry Harpham last week from cancer. After a distinguished career as a miner, an adviser to David Blunkett and a Sheffield councillor, he was returned to this place last May, succeeding David Blunkett himself. Although he was in this place only a short time, he quickly became a popular MP, recognised for his commitment to his constituents and his beliefs. It is a measure of the man that he continued to carry out his work as an MP throughout his treatment. We offer his wife Gill and his five children our profound condolences. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and, in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mims Davies: First, may I associate myself, alongside colleagues, with the sentiments expressed at the sad loss of the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. He came to this House with an excellent record in local government and will be greatly missed. I am sure the whole House sends our condolences to his family at this sad time.
	Housing is the No. 1 issue in my constituency—a workable local plan that looks after our green spaces while offering that pure Conservative value, the right to buy. Does the Prime Minister agree that our Help to Buy ISAs, one of which is currently being taken out every 30 seconds, is the right way to promote savings and encourage home ownership?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the most difficult things for young people is to get that deposit together for their first flat or their first house. That is where Help to Buy ISAs, where we match some of the money they put in, can make such a difference. Some 250,000 first-time buyers have opened a Help to Buy ISA, so under this Government we have seen 40,000 people exercise the right to buy their council house. Now we are extending that to all housing association tenants, and we have seen 130,000 people with Help to Buy getting their first flat or house. There is more to do—mostly, building houses—but helping people with their deposits is vital for our country.

Jeremy Corbyn: I join the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) in paying tribute to Harry Harpham, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, a former miner, who passed away last week. Just a short time ago, Harry used his last question here to ask the Prime Minister about Sheffield Forgemasters and the steel industry. I hope the Prime Minister will reflect on his diligence in representing that industry and his constituency.
	Yesterday, I had a chance to have a very nice conversation with Harry’s widow, Gill, and his family. I asked them to say how they would like to remember Harry. She gave me this message, which I will read out:
	“We have admired the bravery and courage he showed in his life which was formed during the miners’ strike, and carried him forward for the rest of his life”.
	I am sure the whole House and many in the much wider community will remember Harry as a decent, honourable man absolutely dedicated to his community and his constituents. We are very sad at his passing.
	Also following the hon. Member for Eastleigh, I have a question on housing. I have an email from Rosie. She is in her 20s—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, the Rosie who has written to me does not have the same good housing that the Chief Whip of our party does, but aspiration springs eternal. The Rosie who has written to me is in her 20s, and she says:
	“I work incredibly hard at my job, yet I am still living at home with my parents”.
	The lack of housing options is forcing her to consider moving—even leaving the country. She asks the Prime Minister what action he is going to take to help young people and families suffering from unrealistic house prices and uncapped rents to get somewhere safe and secure to live.

David Cameron: First, let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that when you get a letter from the Chief Whip, that normally spells trouble. What I would say to Rosie—the Rosie who wrote to him—is we want to do everything we can to help young people get on the housing ladder. That is why we have got these help-to-save ISAs, and I hope she is looking at that. We are cutting Rosie’s taxes, so this year she will be able to earn
	£11,000 before she starts paying any taxes. If Rosie is a tenant in a housing association home, she will be able to buy that home, because we are introducing and extending the right to buy. And, of course, she will have the opportunity to register for Help to Buy, which gives people the chance to have a smaller deposit on owning their own home. If Rosie is not earning that much money, but wants to be a homeowner, shared ownership can make a real difference. In some parts of the country, you will only need a deposit of some £1,000 or £2,000 to begin the process of becoming a homeowner. But I recognise, in this Parliament, building more houses, following those schemes, we have got to deliver for Rosie.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am very pleased that the Prime Minister wants to help deliver decent housing for Rosie. She lives and works in London, and as the Prime Minister knows, London is very, very expensive. He talks about people getting on the housing ladder, but the reality is that home ownership has fallen under his Government by 200,000—it actually rose by 1 million under the last Labour Government. His record is one, actually, of some years of failure on housing. He said that council homes sold under the right to buy would be replaced like for like. Can the Prime Minister tell us how that policy is panning out?

David Cameron: First, let me start with what happened under Labour with right-to-buy sales. What happened was one council home was built for every 170 council homes they sold. That is the record. We have said that we will make sure that two homes are built for every council home in London that is sold. That is because my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) insisted on that in an amendment to the housing Bill. Now, these take some years to build, but they will be built, or the money comes back to the Treasury.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister ought to be aware that just one home has been built for every eight that have been sold under his Government. People are increasingly finding it very difficult to find anywhere to live. The Chancellor’s crude cuts in housing benefits for those in supported housing are putting at risk hundreds of thousands of elderly people, people with mental health conditions, war veterans, and women fleeing domestic violence who need support. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what estimate housing providers have made in terms of the impact of this policy on supported housing?

David Cameron: First, we are going to increase housing supply in the social sector through an £8 billion housing budget during this Parliament that is going to build 400,000 affordable homes. When it comes to our reforms of housing benefit, yes, we have cut housing benefit because it was completely out of control when we came into government. There were families in London who were getting £100,000 of housing benefit per family. Think how many people—think how many Rosies—were going to work, working hard every day, just to provide that housing benefit for one family. We support supported housing schemes, and we will look very carefully to make sure they can work well in the future, but I make no apology for the fact that in this Parliament we are cutting social rents, so Rosies who are living in social houses and going out to work will have lower rents under this Government.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased the Prime Minister finally got on to the question of supported housing. Housing providers estimate that nearly half of all supported housing schemes will close. One in four providers is set to close all their provision. This is a very serious crisis. I assume the Prime Minister is not content to see the elderly, people with mental health conditions and others with nowhere to live, so can he assure the House now that the warm words he has just given on supported housing will be matched by action, and that he will stop this cut, which will destroy the supported housing sector?

David Cameron: We will continue to support the supported housing sector. The report that the right hon. Gentleman quotes from was an opinion poll with an extremely leading question, if he actually looks at what he was looking at. The changes that we are making are reducing social rents by 1% every year for four years. That is good news for people who go out to work, who work hard and who would like to pay less rent. That goes with the lower taxes that they will be paying and the more childcare they will be getting. The other change that we are making, which does not actually come into force until 2018, is to make sure that we are not paying housing benefit to social tenants way above what we would pay to private sector tenants. The simple point is this, and this is where I think Labour has got to focus: every penny you spend on housing subsidy is money you cannot spend on building houses. So let us take this right back to Rosie, in the beginning. She wants a country where we build homes. She wants a country where you can buy a home. She wants a country with a strong economy, so you can afford to buy a home. All those things we are delivering, and you will not deliver them if you go on spending more and more money on subsidised housing and housing benefit. One day Labour has got to realise that welfare bills have to be brought under control.

Jeremy Corbyn: Shelter estimates that the measures in the housing Bill will lose 180,000 affordable homes over the next four years. The Prime Minister is actually overseeing a very damaging housing crisis. It is pricing out people from buying and it is not providing enough social housing. Therefore, many people are forced to rely on the private rented sector. Those on the Benches behind him recently voted against an amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) for homes to be fit for human habitation. Labour invested £22 billion in government in bringing social homes up to the decent homes standard. There are now 11 million people in this country who are private renters. Does the Prime Minister know how many of those homes do not meet the decent homes standard?

David Cameron: In the last five years, we built more council houses than the previous Labour Government built in 13 years. Where was the right hon. Gentleman when that was going on? Thirteen years, and an absolutely hopeless record on housing. What we are doing is this: an £8 billion housing budget that will provide 400,000 new affordable homes, a target to build a million homes during this Parliament, getting housing benefit down so we can spend money on housing, and having a strong economy that can support the housing we need.

Jeremy Corbyn: I was asking the Prime Minister how many of the 11 million renters are living in homes that do not meet the decent homes standard and are, therefore, substandard. I will help him. One third of homes in the private rented sector do not meet the decent homes standard. Shelter has found that six out of 10 renters have to deal with issues such as damp, mould and leaking rooves and windows. It is simply not good enough.
	Millions are struggling to get the home that they deserve. More families are slipping into temporary accommodation. The elderly are threatened with eviction. Homelessness is rising. Too few homes are being built. Social housing is under pressure. Families are being forced into low-standard, overpriced private rented accommodation. Young people are unable to move out of the family home and start their own lives. When is the Prime Minister going to realise there is a housing crisis in Britain? His Government need to address it now so that this dreadful situation does not continue.

David Cameron: Let me just take one of the figures that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. Homelessness today is less than half what it was at its peak under the last Labour Government. There is a simple point here. You can only invest in new houses, you can only restore existing houses, you can only build new houses and you can only support people into those houses if you have got a strong economy. We inherited mass unemployment, an economy that had completely collapsed and a banking crisis. Now we have got zero inflation, wages growing, unemployment at 5%, an economy growing and people able, for the first time, to look to their future and see that they can buy and own a house in our country.

Robert Jenrick: Nadia Murad, a Yazidi woman, was 19 years old when Daesh came to her village. They killed most of her family, they tortured her, they raped her and they made her their slave. Nadia’s story is the same as those of thousands of Yazidi women, except that thousands of Yazidi women are still held in captivity and Nadia managed to escape. In fact, she is in the Public Gallery today. Will the Prime Minister join me in acknowledging Nadia’s resilience and her bravery—the essential qualities that have allowed her to triumph over Daesh—and will he do everything in his power to redouble his efforts to support Yazidi women and to eradicate Daesh?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in such a way. Let me welcome Nadia Murad, who is here with us today. She and the Yazidi community have suffered appallingly at the hands of this murderous, brutal, fascist organisation in Syria and in Iraq. We must do everything we can to defeat Daesh and its violent ideology. We are playing a leading role in this global coalition. In Iraq, where so many Yazidis have suffered, Daesh has lost over 40% of the territory that it once controlled. We are making progress, but, as I said at the time of the debate about Syria, this is going to take a long time. Building up Iraqi security forces, working with Syrian opposition forces, building the capacity of Governments in both countries to drive this evil organisation out of the middle east—however long it takes, we must stick at it.

Angus Robertson: We on the SNP Benches join in the condolences expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in relation to Harry Harpham, and we pass on our best wishes to his family at this sad and difficult time.
	The Prime Minister made a vow, and his party signed an agreement, that there would be no detriment to Scotland with new devolution arrangements. Why is the UK Treasury proposing plans that may be detrimental to Scotland to the tune of £3 billion?

David Cameron: We accept the Smith principles of “no detriment”. There are two principles: first, no detriment to Scotland, quite rightly, at the time when the transfer is made in terms of Scotland having these new tax-raising powers; and then, no detriment to Scottish taxpayers, but also to the rest of the United Kingdom taxpayers, whom we have to bear in mind as we take into account this very important negotiation.
	I have had good conversations with the First Minister, and negotiations are under way. I want us successfully to complete this very important piece of devolution in a fair and reasonable way, and these negotiations should continue. But let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that if we had had full fiscal devolution—with oil revenues having collapsed by 94%—the right hon. Gentleman and his party would be just weeks away from a financial calamity for Scotland.

Angus Robertson: In the context of the referendums, whether in Scotland or across the UK on EU membership, do not voters have a right to know that what is promised by the UK Government can be trusted and will be delivered in full? Will the Prime Minister tell the Treasury that time is running out on delivering a fair fiscal framework, and that it must agree a deal that is both fair to the people of Scotland and fair to the rest of the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman everything that has been committed to by this Government will be delivered. We committed to this huge act of devolution to Scotland, and we have delivered it—we committed to the Scotland Bill, and we are well on the way to delivering it—with all the things we said we would, including those vital Smith principles.
	There is an ongoing negotiation to reach a fair settlement, and I would say to the Scottish First Minister and the Scottish Finance Minister that they have to recognise there must be fairness across the rest of the United Kingdom too. But with good will, I can tell you that no one is keener on agreement than me. I want the Scottish National party, here and in Holyrood, to have to start making decisions—which taxes are you going to raise, what are you going to do with benefits? I want to get rid of, frankly, this grievance agenda and let you get on with a governing agenda, and then we can see what you are made of.

Michelle Donelan: The skills shortage in engineering in Wiltshire is a particular problem. It is threatening and undermining all the work we have done in job creation and also in supporting businesses. It is, quite simply, a ticking time bomb. May I ask the Prime Minister what more he can do to remove the stigma, misunderstanding and problems associated with STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects and STEM careers?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. There are special circumstances in Wiltshire, because it has the enormous success of Dyson, which is hiring engineers and skilled mathematicians and scientists from every university in the country, and long may that continue. What we will do is help by training 3 million apprentices in this Parliament, and we are giving special help to teachers of STEM subjects and encouraging them into teaching. I think there is a lot that business and industry can do to help us in this by going into schools and talking about what these modern engineering careers are all about—how much fulfilment people can get from these careers—to encourage people to change the culture when it comes to pursuing these careers.

Louise Ellman: Young people afraid of losing their homes, women denied the pensions that they were expecting and, increasingly, the needy left exposed without the social care they need to live a decent life: when will the Prime Minister address these scandals?

David Cameron: What we are doing for pensioners is putting in place the triple lock so that every pensioner knows there can never be another shameful 75p increase in the pension that we saw under Labour. They know that, every year, it will increase either by wages, prices or 2.5%, and that is why the pension is so much higher than when I became Prime Minister. Of course we need to make sure there is a fair settlement for local government, too—we will be hearing more about that later today—but the ability of local councils to raise special council tax for social care will help an area where there is great pressure.

Nigel Adams: The Spitfire was a crucial element in our winning the battle of Britain 75 years ago and keeping our country free from tyranny. However, there are some who fear that our independent nuclear deterrent could be as obsolete as the Spitfire. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister assure the House and the country that that is not the case?

David Cameron: It takes quite a talent for a shadow Defence Secretary to insult Spitfire pilots and our brave submariners all in one go. Another week, another completely ludicrous Labour position on defence. The last word should go to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon)—thank you Twitter for this one—who, as she came out of the parliamentary Labour party meeting, tweeted:
	“Oh dear oh dear omg oh dear oh dear need to go rest in a darkened room”.
	I expect that she will find the rest of her party there with her.

Nicholas Dakin: At the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee today, the Business Secretary confirmed that the Government will not support the European Commission in raising tariffs on dumped steel from countries such as China. Why will the UK Government not stand up for UK steel?

David Cameron: We have repeatedly stood up for UK steel, including by supporting anti-dumping measures in the EU, but that is not enough. We need to get behind public procurement for steel, and that is what we are doing. We need to get behind reducing energy bills for steel, and that is what we are doing. We need to support communities, like the hon. Gentleman’s, that have seen job losses, and that is exactly what we are doing. We recognise what a vital part of Britain’s industrial base the steel industry is, and that is why we are backing it.

Victoria Atkins: Julian Assange is accused of rape and is on the run. Despite that, a United Nations panel that nobody has ever heard of declared last week that he has been “arbitrarily detained” and is somehow deserving of compensation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was a nonsensical decision, that Mr Assange should hand himself over to the Swedish prosecutors and that if anyone is deserving of compensation, it is the British taxpayer, who has had to pay £12 million to police his Ecuadorian hideout?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a ridiculous decision. This is a man with an outstanding allegation of rape against him. He barricaded himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, yet claims that he was arbitrarily detained. The only person who detained him was himself. What he should do is come out of the embassy and face the arrest warrant against him. He is being asked to stand trial in Sweden—a country with a fair reputation for justice. He should bring to an end this whole sorry saga.

Michael Weir: Women’s aid groups, including my own in Angus, have raised the serious concern that changes in housing benefit may force the closure of many refuges. Will the Prime Minister undertake to specifically exclude refuges from the changes and to protect this vital service for vulnerable women and children?

David Cameron: As I said in my answers to the Leader of the Opposition, we want to support the supported housing projects that work in many of our constituencies. We have all seen how important they are. The changes to housing benefit that we are talking about will not come into place until 2018, so there is plenty of time to make sure that we support supported housing projects.

Iain Stewart: Next month, Milton Keynes will host the first ever national apprenticeship fair. We have a strong record in expanding apprenticeships, but is there not still a need for a cultural shift in careers advice to show that high-level apprenticeships and university places are equally valid?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The careers advice that we need to give young people is that every school leaver has the choice of either a university place, because we have uncapped university places, or an apprenticeship, because we are funding 3 million of them in this Parliament. We need to go on to explain that if someone becomes an apprentice, that does not rule out doing a degree or degree-level qualification later on during their apprenticeship. The option of earning and learning is stronger in Britain today than it has ever been.

Joanna Cherry: Does the Prime Minister agree that how we protect human rights in the legal systems of the United Kingdom deserves full and careful consideration? Will he give an assurance that his consultation on the repeal of the Human Rights Act will not conflict with the pre-election purdah periods in Scotland and the other devolved Administrations?

David Cameron: We will look very carefully at all those issues, but I say to the hon. and learned Lady and Opposition Members that the idea that there were no human rights in Britain before the Human Rights Act is ludicrous. This House has been a great bastion and defender of human rights, but we will look carefully at the timing of any announcement that we make.

Stuart Andrew: I have spent most of my working life in children’s hospices, which rely heavily on donations from organisations such as Children in Need, which has a long and proud association with the town of Pudsey. Last week, Children in Need’s most famous celebrity sadly passed away. Will my right hon. Friend join me and the people of Pudsey in paying tribute to Sir Terry Wogan, who did so much to inspire millions of pounds to be donated to these causes?

David Cameron: I am very happy to do that. My hon. Friend, who represents a constituency—Pudsey—which has such a connection with Children in Need, is absolutely right to raise this. Terry Wogan was one of this country’s great icons. Like many people in the House, I felt almost as if I had grown up with him, listening to him on the radio in the car, watching him present “Blankety Blank” or all the many other things he did. Perhaps many people’s favourite was the “Eurovision Song Contest”, to which he brought such great humour every year. You did not have to be a “TOG” to be an enormous fan. I think that we were all fans, and he will be hugely missed. His work with Children in Need was particularly special.

John Nicolson: On Monday, I attended the Work and Pensions tribunal appeal hearing for my constituent, Mrs Jackie Millan, a brave, inspiring woman who has dwarfism. Despite being unable to climb staircases except on all fours, she was awarded zero disability points by her assessor. Has the Prime Minister, as a constituency MP, attended any tribunal hearings? If so, did he find the process fair, dignified and compassionate?

David Cameron: I am very happy to look into the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises. As a constituency MP, of course I have people coming to my surgery with inquiries about either employment and support allowance or indeed, disability living allowance. I also have the experience, having had a disabled son, of filling out all the forms myself. I am looking forward to the new system, which I think, with a proper medical check, will work out better. I have listened to the arguments, but we have to have an adjudication system that is independent of politicians.

Amanda Milling: When I was growing up, I always knew I was nearly home when I saw the iconic cooling towers of the Rugeley power stations on the horizon. On Monday, the owners of the remaining power station announced its likely closure this summer. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to meet me to discuss further the Government support that can be given to the 150 workers, and the provision that can be made to ensure that the site is redeveloped as quickly as possible?

David Cameron: I will certainly arrange for that meeting to take place. We should thank everyone who has worked at power stations that come to the end of their lives for the work that they have done to give us electricity to keep the lights on and our economy moving. My hon. Friend is right: as coal-fired power stations come to the end of their lives, we must ensure that proper redevelopment takes place so that we provide jobs for constituents like hers.

Clive Efford: The Football Supporters Federation is considering calling on fans to hold mass walk-outs to get their voices heard about ticket prices. Will the Prime Minister act to give fans a place at the table in club boardrooms so that their voices can be heard when issues such as ticket prices are discussed?

David Cameron: I will look very carefully at the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion because there is a problem whereby some clubs put up prices very rapidly every year, even though so much of the money for football comes through sponsorship, equipment and other sources. I will look carefully at what he says.

Julian Lewis: The vital debate and vote on the Trident successor submarine should have been held in the last Parliament, but was blocked by the Liberal Democrats. Given the fun that the Prime Minister had a few moments ago at the Labour party’s expense over Trident’s successor, it must be tempting for him to put off the vote until Labour’s conference in October. However, may I urge him to do the statesmanlike thing and hold that vote as soon as possible because everyone is ready for it and everyone is expecting it?

David Cameron: We should have the vote when we need to have the vote, and that is exactly what we will do. No one should be in any doubt that the Government are going to press ahead with all the decisions that are necessary to replace in full our Trident submarines. I think the Labour party should listen to Lord Hutton, who was Defence Secretary for many years. He says:
	“If Labour wants to retain any credibility on defence whatsoever, it had better recognise the abject futility of what it’s leadership is currently proposing”.
	I hope that when that vote comes, we will have support from right across the House of Commons.

Gareth Thomas: In the light of today’s damning National Audit Office report on teacher shortages, will the Prime Minister take urgent steps to help excellent schools such as those in my constituency to recruit and—crucially—to retain the best teachers, including by extending the so-called inner-London weighting to all Harrow schools and other suburban schools in London?

David Cameron: Obviously we will look carefully at the report. There are 13,100 more teachers in our schools than when I became Prime Minister, and our teachers are better qualified than ever before—[Interruption.] People are shouting about increased pupil numbers, but they might be interested to know that we have 47,500 fewer pupils in overcrowded schools than in 2010, because we put the investment in where it was needed. Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman is that we need schemes such as Teach First and our national leadership programme, which are getting some of the best teachers into the schools where they are most needed.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister deserves great credit for the results of the Syria replenishment conference that was held under his co-sponsorship in London. He will be aware, however, that that can only address the symptoms, and not the causes, of the catastrophe that is Syria today. Will he tell the House what more he thinks the British Government can do to try to promote the political track and ensure that it reaches the most speedy possible success?

David Cameron: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he says about the Syria conference, and that gives me the opportunity to thank my co-hosts, the Norwegians, the Germans, the Kuwaitis, and the United Nations Secretary-General. In one day we raised more money than has ever been raised at one of these conferences—more than $10 billion—and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development who did a lot of the very hard work. That money helps because it will keep people in the region, feed and clothe them, and make sure that they get the medicine they need. But we do need a political solution and we will go on working with all our partners to deliver that. That requires all countries, including Russia, to recognise the need for a moderate Sunni opposition to be at the table to create a transitional authority in Syria. Without that, I fear that we will end up with a situation with Assad in one corner, and Daesh in the other corner—the worst possible outcome in terms of terrorism, and for refugees and the future of Syria.

Diana R. Johnson: I am sure that the Prime Minister is looking forward to visiting Hull next year, and as the UK city of culture, we are already backed by many prestigious organisations such as the BBC and the Royal Shakespeare Company. However, we could do much more to make this a real national celebration of culture. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging the many London-based national arts organisations to do their bit and contribute to the success of Hull 2017?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes an important point, which is that our national cultural institutions have an immense amount of work and prestige that they can bring out to regional galleries and centres when there is a city of culture event, or indeed more broadly, and I talk to them about that. I am looking forward to visiting Hull, and as it is the city of Wilberforce, I am sure my hon. Friends will want to join me. Hull is a city of poets, including Andrew Marvell, and it was home to Philip Larkin for many years, and, of course, Stevie Smith—sometimes one might want to contemplate what it looks like “not waving but drowning.”
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before large numbers of hon. Members file out of the Chamber, I remind them that the election for the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee is now taking place in Committee Room 16. Voting will continue until 1.30 pm. Voting on a deferred Division is taking place in the No Lobby, and that will continue until 2 pm.

Points of Order

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that is of marginal interest at best to the outside world, but which would risk a number of jobs and further undermine the traditions and standards of this House. That is, of course, the matter of the change from vellum to paper for the recording of Acts of Parliament.
	You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on 9 October last year you indicated to me, in answer to a point of order, that there would be a substantive vote in this House before any such matter occurred. In answer to a point of order from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on 9 February 2016, you indicated that you had changed your view on the matter: it would no longer be necessary for a substantive vote in this House, and that, if she wished to register her opposition, an early-day motion would be a way of doing so. That, of course, would have no effect whatever on the other place. However, if I were to call a debate under the aegis of the Backbench Business Committee, with a substantive motion which required that this retrograde decision should be reversed, can you advise me what effect that would have, both on our decision in this place and whether the other place would have any reason to listen to that decision?

Mr Speaker: Let me say the following to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am grateful for his point of order. First, I have not actually changed my view on the desirability of a vote in this Chamber on the matter. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying, as I readily acknowledged yesterday when a point of order was raised, that I had expected a vote would take place on that matter in this House. However, the matter does fall within the aegis—and, it appears, in terms of decision-making competence, the exclusive aegis—of the other place. For that reason, and on account of their desire to proceed, there is no entitlement for this House to supersede the will of the other place.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman quite correctly judges that it would be open to him and to other Members to seek a Backbench Business Committee debate on this matter. I wish the hon. Gentleman all success, presumably in a cross-party effort, to secure such a debate. It is not for me to seek to comment on how the other place judges matters. I would not have sought to do so anyway and I have been reminded by sound professional advice that it is not for me to do so. I therefore do not think I should get into the business of speculating as to what might happen. I have known the hon. Gentleman for well over 20 years and he is, at his best, a formidable and energetic campaigner. If he feels strongly, my advice to him, together with the hon. Lady from the Labour Benches who raised the matter yesterday, is to go ahead and seek a debate, marshal his forces and to plan for victory, rather than to spend time sitting around predicting it. Perhaps we can leave it there.

Dennis Skinner: You can do it when you get to the other place.

Mr Speaker: I think it would be tactful to ignore the undoubtedly purposeful interjection, from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), but I heard what he said.

Tommy Sheppard: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a query about how we select ministerial questions in the post-English votes for English laws situation. Earlier today, we had Scottish questions. Some 45 Scottish Members submitted a question; three were chosen, which makes a success rate of 6%. Some 48 non-Scottish Members submitted a question; 12 were chosen, which makes a success rate of 25%. I appreciate that the randomness of the selection process can create these situations, but it is a matter of concern that Scottish Members had only a one-in-four chance of questioning the Scottish Secretary, as compared with other Members of the House. I ask you ever so gently, as part of the review into EVEL, to consider whether it might be appropriate, for those Departments with a specific territorial responsibility, to put in place some mechanism to allow the Members representing those areas a better chance of holding Ministers to account.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer to the thrust of his question is that the selection is done by electronic ballot. It is done that way for questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland and for every other Question Time. I am happy to consider his request for consideration of an alternative method, but I hope he will bear in mind the likelihood that there will exist opinions other than and different from his own.

Tim Farron: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your help. Yesterday, in response to a written question, the Immigration Minister had to correct an inaccurate answer previously given to the question of how many young adults who had previously been refugees but unaccompanied minors had been forcibly removed from this country. The original answer was 1,600; the corrected answer was 3,750. Will you open an investigation into how that might have happened and press for information about the cost to the UK Exchequer, in forgone revenue, of deporting 3,750 young people in whom we had invested over many years and who were just at the prime of their lives and about to be able to contribute to our country?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that he can seek a debate on the matter, he can table written parliamentary questions pursuant to the information he has already extracted, and he can raise the matter, with all the authority of his leadership office, on the Floor of the House at business questions tomorrow. I keenly expect to see him in his place and leaping to his feet with alacrity tomorrow morning.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Secretary Theresa Villiers, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Philip Hammond, the Attorney General, Greg Hands and Mr Ben Wallace, presented a Bill to make provision about the Independent Reporting Commission, extend the period for the appointment of Northern Ireland Ministers, modify the pledge made by Northern Ireland
	Ministers on taking office, provide for persons becoming Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to give an undertaking, and make provision about the draft budget of the Northern Ireland Executive, in pursuance of the agreement made on 17 November 2015 called A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 133) with explanatory notes (Bill 133-EN).

Policing and Crime Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Secretary Theresa May, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Secretary Greg Clark, the Attorney General and Mike Penning, presented a Bill to make provision for collaboration between the emergency services; to make provision about the handling of police complaints and other matters relating to police conduct and to make further provision about the Independent Police Complaints Commission; to make provision for super-complaints about policing; to make provision for the investigation of concerns about policing raised by whistle-blowers; to make provision about police discipline; to make provision about police inspection; to make provision about the powers of police civilian staff and police volunteers; to remove the powers of the police to appoint traffic wardens; to enable provision to be made to alter police ranks; to make provision about the Police Federation; to make provision in connection with the replacement of the Association of Chief Police Officers with the National Police Chiefs’ Council; to make provision about the system for bail after arrest but before charge; to make provision to enable greater use of modern technology at police stations; to make other amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; to amend the powers of the police under the Mental Health Act 1983; to extend the powers of the police in relation to maritime enforcement; to make provision about deputy police and crime commissioners; to make provision to enable changes to the names of police areas; to make provision about the regulation of firearms; to make provision about the licensing of alcohol; to make provision about the implementation and enforcement of financial sanctions; to amend the Police Act 1996 to make further provision about police collaboration; to make provision about the powers of the National Crime Agency; to make provision for requiring arrested persons to provide details of nationality; to make provision for requiring defendants in criminal proceedings to provide details of nationality and other information; to make provision to combat the sexual exploitation of children; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 134) with explanatory notes (Bill 134-EN).

Wild Animals in Circuses (Prohibition)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Will Quince: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of wild animals in circuses.
	We have heard mention of Andy Murray’s new baby. In the last few days, we have had a new delivery ourselves, and it would be remiss of me not to apologise to my wife for taking a pause in our paternity arrangements to present the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Congratulations.

Will Quince: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to bring in the Bill, and I would like to pay tribute to those Members, particularly the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who worked hard on this matter in the last Parliament and pressed for a prohibition on the use of wild animals in circuses.
	The Conservative manifesto, on which I was proud to stand at the 2015 general election, clearly stated:
	“We will ban wild animals in circuses”.
	It is a commitment mirrored on all sides of the House. The Labour party manifesto committed to
	“ban wild animals in circuses”.
	The Democratic Unionist party’s policy is now to support a ban on wild animals in circuses. The SNP’s Westminster manifesto promised to consult on the issue of wild animals in travelling circuses, with many SNP MPs and MSPs now calling for a complete ban. This is one of those rare moments where there appears be a degree of consensus among all parties.
	In 2011, the House agreed a Backbench Business motion calling on the then Government to ban all wild animals in circuses. I believe that many Members consider this to be a piece of unfinished business from the last Parliament, and I appreciate the chance to promote this Bill to press for that vital reform.
	Ahead of a ban being introduced, the coalition Government introduced, as an interim welfare measure, legislation to license those circuses that use wild animals. I believe it is time to introduce a ban to supersede those regulations.
	According to the latest responses to written parliamentary questions, last year there were still 18 wildanimals being used by travelling circuses in England. That is a small number of animals, but it is a practice that I, the majority of MPs and the vast majority of the public think should be brought to an end.
	Why are wild animals in circuses no longer appropriate? First, there is the practical element. In the past two centuries, wild animals were an essential part of the circus experience. The definition of a wild animal is a member of a species that is not normally domesticated in Great Britain. For many people, particularly those who could not afford foreign holidays, circuses were the only opportunity they had to see wild and exotic animals. That is no longer the case. We are very fortunate in this country to have many world-class zoos, such as Colchester zoo, which has elephants, tigers, penguins, lions, bears and chimpanzees, among other animals. I should probably declare an interest, because I am a gold card member of the zoo and go there with my daughter on many occasions throughout the year. The zoo does fantastic work caring for the animals and providing them with different types of enrichment in order to occupy their time and promote natural behaviours. Crucially, it aims to ensure that the conditions in which wild animals are kept are as close as possible to their natural habitats, thus educating people about a species’ natural environment as well as better enabling them to promote important issues such as conservation.
	Moreover, thanks to the huge growth in the opportunity for foreign travel, many more people can travel across the world to see these animals in their natural habitats. The extraordinary wildlife documentaries on television now mean that we can see these wild animals in high definition from the comfort of our homes, should we so wish.
	The second objection is to do with our basic respect for wild animals. Wild animals that have been used and kept in travelling circuses have the same genetic make-up as their counterparts in zoos or in the wild. Their instinctive behaviours remain. Using such animals to perform tricks and stunts hardly encourages people to respect the animals’ innate wild nature and value. Neither is there any educational, conservational nor research benefit from using the animals solely or primarily for such entertainment and spectacle.
	I understand that, in many cases, circus keepers do the best they can to care for the wild animals in question, and those circuses licensed under the interim licensing scheme of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must adhere to welfare standards. However, the very nature of the circus business model means that attempting to recreate the natural habitat of a wild species or to aid in its conservation can never be achieved.
	Respected animal health and welfare groups, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association, have long supported and campaigned for a complete ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. Their views are based on the strongly held belief that travelling circuses cannot meet the welfare needs of wild animals. I have some sympathy with those views.
	The 2007 Radford report concluded that there appeared to be
	“little evidence to demonstrate that the welfare of animals kept in travelling circuses is any better or worse than that of animals kept in other captive environments”.
	It is, therefore, clear that there are very strong views on both sides, but when seeking to introduce a ban it is vital to take an evidence-based approach and to recognise the grounds on which it would be sensible to introduce that prohibition.
	First and foremost, I want to get this ban through and carry the support of Members on both sides of the House. I am aware that there are some, including in this House, who argue that these animals were born and bred in circuses and that it would be cruel to drag them away from the keepers and environments they know well. I understand that argument, but I am afraid that I respectfully disagree with it. We cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good. Opposing a ban on the basis that wild animals already in circuses might be disrupted from their regular patterns of life would prevent a ban from being implemented in perpetuity, which is not acceptable.
	Of course, it is vital that there is provision to ensure that those wild animals in circuses in England are well cared for in retirement. DEFRA’s circus licensing scheme already requires that all licensed animals must have retirement plans in place. It is also important that we give those circuses affected appropriate time to prepare and adapt to any ban. However, like so many throughout the House, I really believe that this is a reform whose time has come and that we should follow countries such as Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands in prohibiting the use of wild animals in circuses.
	Wild animals were once an integral part of the circus experience. That is no longer the case. The use of wild animals in travelling circuses can no longer be justified. The majority of MPs want a ban. The public supports a ban. I urge colleagues to support the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I had not intended to speak, but, having heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) has said, I think it is important to put on the record that, if his proposal is indeed supported by the Government, it is they, rather than a private Member through a Bill, who should legislate on it. The reason I say that is that this is a controversial issue—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend conceded that it is a controversial issue. It is not surprising that, as a Conservative, I should regard it as controversial that this House should be considering a total prohibition on what is currently a perfectly lawful activity. If we are going to legislate, let the Government introduce a Bill of their own and let us have a proper debate about the detail.

Tania Mathias: rose—

Christopher Chope: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester will listen to this response. He spoke of tricks being done by wild animals in circuses. If we look at a similar Bill promoted in the previous Parliament, we will see that it sought to impose a ban even on displaying wild animals.
	The definition of a wild animal is also an issue. For example, does my hon. Friend think that a camel, which in most countries of the world is regarded as a domestic animal, should be banned from being able to participate in a circus?

John Nicolson: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just explain that in these circumstances we do not take interventions? That does not happen. Mr Chope’s remarks must be heard.

Christopher Chope: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester did not refer to the outcome of the licensing regime, which has, perfectly rightly, been brought into effect. The regime requires up to seven inspections a year of animals in travelling circuses. My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that zoos, including Colchester zoo, are inspected only once a year. We are now about to embark on the fourth year of that licensing regime and nobody has criticised the welfare of the animals subject to it. On the basis that good Conservatives should argue for as little regulation and prohibition as is possible and reasonable,
	I think we have reached a compromise whereby we have a proper and tight welfare licensing regime without the need for a total ban or prohibition. That is why I say to my hon. Friend that it would be wrong of him to raise people’s expectations—I accept that many support the views he has expressed today—by suggesting that this legislation could be passed under the Private Member’s Bill procedure. I hope that his response will be that the Government should bring forward legislation, if indeed the Government have the will to implement this particular aspect of our manifesto.
	It would be out of order, Mr Speaker, for me to talk about other aspects of the Conservative manifesto that have not yet been implemented and might not even be implemented at all. The onus for putting this matter right, if it needs to be put right, must be on the Government. This will be controversial and technical legislation, which is why I do not think it appropriate to be dealt with under the Private Member’s Bill procedure.
	Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Will Quince, Jim Dowd, Sir Roger Gale, Bob Blackman, Mark Pritchard, Mr Philip Hollobone, Nusrat Ghani, Mr Virendra Sharma, Simon Hoare and Louise Haigh present the Bill.
	Will Quince accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 March, and to be printed (Bill 135).

Police Grant Report (England and Wales)

Mr Speaker: I remind the House that this motion is subject to double majority voting. If a Division is called on this motion, all Members of the House are able to vote. Under Standing Order No. 83R, the motion will be agreed only if, of those voting, both a majority of all Members and a majority of Members representing constituencies in England and Wales vote in support of the motion. At the end, the Tellers will report the results—first for all Members and secondly for those representing constituencies in England and Wales.

Mike Penning: I beg to move,
	That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2016–17 (HC 753), which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.
	I crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker, because I noticed that the new Serjeant at Arms was in his place earlier and I was hoping that he would still be there now, although I mean no disrespect to his deputy. I know the new Serjeant at Arms well. He comes from a great regiment, and we will miss him at the Ministry of Justice where he looked after our security. I am sure he will do a fantastic job here.
	I was enormously proud when I was appointed the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice. Early on, I encountered a great deal of lobbying about the grant from colleagues here, as well from police constables and police and crime commissioners around the country. The lobbying was about whether the grant was fair, whether it should be changed and whether police forces would be able to survive further cuts. We inherited a really difficult economic situation and the Treasury quite rightly asked the Home Office to investigate whether further cuts could be made. A very good job was done in the last Parliament of taking really difficult financial decisions to address the funding issues we inherited. What was really good was that in most cases—I say in most cases—discussions were sensible and pragmatic, and we can see from the fact that crime has fallen since 2010 and has continued to fall under this Government, that it is possible to do more with less.

Gareth Thomas: If the Minister and his ministerial colleagues decide to extend the term of the Metropolitan Police Chief Constable, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, will he make it a condition that Sir Bernard is not allowed to merge Harrow police with any other borough command? If that were to happen, Harrow police would inevitably be diverted to police other parts of London.

Mike Penning: Unlike the previous Labour Administration, we believe in police officers making the decisions they need to make for their communities, and we do not believe in a top-down approach. We have devolved operational policing to make sure that chief constables and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner can make operational decisions and other decisions such as how local community funding is run, whether that is though the Mayor’s office or through PCCs. I know that the Labour party opposed PCCs extensively, but it has sensibly changed its mind, not least on account of much lobbying from Labour PCCs. I shall not in any way instruct the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on how he should police in London and the Mayor will not instruct him on operational issues; those are matters for him.
	What I will say is that there will be more money for policing in London than there would have been if a Labour Minister were standing at this Dispatch Box. Labour wanted to cut 10% of its funding budget—and perhaps I will come back to that later.

Philip Davies: As the Minister knows, I have opposed cuts to the policing budget every year but he has always had a good argument to put back to me by saying that crime is going down, thereby justifying the Government’s position. My local paper, the Bradford Telegraph and Argus pointed out last week that crime had gone up by 15% across the Bradford district over the course of the last year. If falling crime was a justification for a falling police grant, now that we face significant rising crime in the Bradford district, including in my constituency, does that mean by the same logic that we will get a substantial increase in the police grant?

Mike Penning: My hon. Friend is nothing less than determined to press his case every time, but crime has fallen, although some types of crime have increased. Reported crime, particularly sexual assaults and domestic violence, can be seen to have gone up. I am very pleased that people have the confidence to come forward now when they might not have done so in the past.
	We need to look carefully at where certain types of crime are increasing. Only the other day, I met car manufacturers and asked them why we have seen such an increase in car thefts, particularly of high-value vehicles, when we had previously seen a decrease for some considerable time. We are seeing some increases in crime that were not previously included in the statistics—on fraud, for example. Under the previous Labour Administration, fraud was not reported, but it is now part of the statistics we use because it is, sadly, a crime that we face today.
	It is interesting to reflect on what happened after the Chancellor announced from this Dispatch Box that we would not cut the police budget by 25%, or by 10% as the shadow Home Secretary suggested, or even in a way that some forces had said could be managed. We said that we would not cut it at all between now and 2020 in order to give the police the confidence they needed about the funding that would be available. What is particularly interesting is that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and other chief constables did not suddenly say, “Okay then, we are not going to carry out any more reforms; we are not going ahead with them now that we have the money we need”. Rather, they said that very night that they needed to go ahead with many of the reforms that were designed to make our police forces better at detecting and convicting criminals.

David Hanson: The Minister must accept that there are 18,000 fewer police officers than when I stood at that Dispatch Box on the last day of the Labour Government six years ago. He must accept that there have been cuts in real-terms grants and he should explain honestly to us why local authorities and police and crime commissioners such as mine in north Wales are raising the precept to compensate for the cut in the central Government grant.

Mike Penning: Let me make a couple of points about that. The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of being in the Home Office, was absolutely right when he said that there used to be more warranted police officers than there are today. However, actually in percentage terms there are more warranted police officers on the streets of this country today doing the work we need them to do than when he was the Minister.
	It worries me that more than 10% of some forces’ warranted officers are still not out on the streets doing the job that we would expect them to do. That is one of the reforms with which we must persevere. We must ensure that officers with the skills and the equipment that they need are out on the streets.

Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Penning: Not for the moment. I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary when I have given way to colleagues who have already tried to intervene.
	As for the point raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), he should have asked those on his own Front Bench why they had said publicly, “Let us cut the police grant by another 10%”—something that we have not done.

Jake Berry: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I feel almost as though I have been promoted, given that he has allowed me to intervene ahead of the shadow Home Secretary.
	My right hon. Friend has referred to the response of police and crime commissioners to increases in police budgets. In Lancashire, our directly funded police grant is going up. The police and crime commissioner and chief constable had previously presented doomsday scenarios, saying that the Lancashire constabulary was no longer fit for purpose. Given that the Government have listened to not only Members of Parliament but the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable, is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that they have not come out and welcomed the increased budget?

Mike Penning: I met a delegation of Lancashire Members from all parts of the House, and indeed I met everyone who had asked to see me, including the police and crime commissioners and the chief constables. What really shocks me now is that not only has the Lancashire police and crime commissioner failed to welcome the budget, but he has been out there whingeing that he will be short of money again. What I would say to him is that he needs to take a very close look at his reserves. He has been moaning about a sum of £1 million, but if he looks at his reserves, he will find that it is minuscule compared with them.

Andy Burnham: Will the Minister give way?

Mike Penning: Before I give way to the shadow Home Secretary, let me make a point about precepts. All Governments look at precepts. Some PCCs have said that they will not increase theirs, some are increasing theirs by the 2% limit, and others will take the £5 option. That is the arrangement to which we agreed. However, I was lobbied extensively by PCCs throughout the country who wanted the precept to go up by much, much more than 2%. Now I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the Minister, but let us get something straight. When I became shadow Home Secretary, he and his Government colleagues were proposing to cut police funding by between 25% and 40%. It was pressure from Labour Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) in a full Opposition day debate, that forced them into a humiliating U-turn. Let us just get our facts right.
	Anyway, is this promise what it seems to be? The Minister seems to be suggesting that there will be no cuts, but can he guarantee that there will be no real-terms cut for any police force in the next few years?

Mike Penning: I am so pleased that I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman. I should have given way earlier—I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry).
	I find this absolutely fascinating. Any other Opposition would have considered modelling to establish what a force could or could not do, which is exactly what the Government did. We asked the forces whether or not they could absorb—in modelling terms—cuts of 25% or 40%. What we did not do, after that modelling process, was say, completely arbitrarily, “Well, we will make it 10%, then. You will be able to swallow 10% between now and 2020.” Some forces would have really struggled to do that under the present funding formula.

Andy Burnham: Answer the question.

Mike Penning: I am always straight. The right hon. Gentleman can sit there and waffle away from a sedentary position, but actually the 10% was waffle as well. There was no fact behind it, and most of the forces came out against it. Given the precept limits, none of the 43 forces was subjected to a real-terms cash cut.

Keith Vaz: The Minister should be commended for being the first Policing Minister in a generation to tackle the issue of police funding by initiating a review of the funding formula, but, as the House knows, that review ended with a long pause. On 1 February, I wrote to the Minister asking when the consultation would begin. The Home Affairs Committee is keen for it to begin as soon as possible. Is he now in a position to answer my question ?

Mike Penning: I thank the Chairman of the Committee for his letter, and also for the kind comments that he often makes about me when I am at the Dispatch Box and when I appear before his Committee. I wrote to him yesterday; I am sorry if he has not received my letter. I have not given a definitive date, and I do not think that he would expect me to do so at this stage, given that we are still considering how the settlement should be laid out. We need to ensure that I do not have to stand at the Dispatch Box and eat as much humble pie as I did last time, when we got it wrong. I admitted that we had got it wrong, and we will not make the same mistake again.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I question the Minister on a point of fact? I know that he will have the facts in front of him. My police force, South Wales police, has had about 240 fewer officers on the beat since 2010. We can talk about whether that is a good or a bad thing, but it is a fact. According to my rough calculations, based on the data release, South Wales police will be subject to a real-terms cut of nearly £3.5 million in the next two years. Am I wrong?

Mike Penning: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Not only have I met South Wales MPs in the last couple of days, but the very vocal PCC—whom I know very well, as, I am sure the hon. Gentleman does—has not raised those figures with me. I suggest that, before South Wales police ask for any more money—which I do not think that they will need to do—they should look very closely at the size of their reserves, which are astronomical.
	We need to take account of what the police have already been able to achieve, and the collaboration that has taken place with the help of extra funding from the Department, in order to find ways of providing better day-to-day policing out there. We should not sit in our silos, as we have for many years, allowing money to be spent in a building that is being only half used while another building up the road is just sitting there and could be put to full use.
	Hampshire MPs are rightly proud of their emergency services. I am sure that we are all proud of ours as well, but the innovation that has taken place in Hampshire is quite astounding. Money has been saved that can be used in other front-line work, and that has been absolutely brilliant. Winchester has a brand-new fire station. On the first floor are the fire officers and on the next floor are the police, because it is a police station as well as a fire station. More than half the fire stations in England and Wales are within 1 kilometre of an ambulance station or a police station. We are starting to see the same sort of innovation elsewhere in the country, and we should ensure that it continues.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister is right to commend the hard work of the police in very difficult circumstances, but he has asked for comparisons. In Greater Manchester, violent crime is up by 36%, sexual offences are up by 46%, and overall crime is up by 14%. We have had 20% fewer police officers and 4% fewer police community support officers, and we are looking at an £8.5 million cut in real-terms funding in the next financial year. Those figures do not add up, do they?

Mike Penning: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that crime has fallen in Manchester since 2010, as it has in the rest of the country. There is real concern about certain elements of crime, which the hon. Gentleman’s chief constable and PCC will be addressing, as we are at the Home Office. However, I ask him to look closely at the figures that he has given. We must be careful not to scare people away. We want people to report sexual assaults, but historically they have not done so. We want them to report domestic violence, but historically they have not done so.

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

Neil Coyle: rose—

Mike Penning: I will give way to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) again later, if he still wants to intervene.

Neil Coyle: The Minister says that it is important for people to have the confidence to report crime. In London we have seen a 21% increase in sexual offences and a 22% increase in violent crime, including knife crime, but in Southwark last year, worryingly, only 16% of reported crimes resulted in convictions. When will the Minister stop insulting the hard-working officers and constituents in Southwark, and ensure that we have the resources to tackle crime properly, keep people safe, and secure prosecutions?

Mike Penning: I have never insulted an officer, or anyone’s constituent, in my entire life, and I never will. I am proud to be Policing Minister, and glad to be in the House representing my constituents and the country as a whole, so I resent the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made. What would have happened in London if there had been a 10% cut? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that that would not have happened, but it is exactly what was proposed by Labour Front Benchers.

Andrew Stephenson: I agree with the point that the Minister was trying to make about the emergency services working together more closely. In the town of Barnoldswick, we have seen the removal of an ambulance station but now our paramedics work out of the local police station. Such collaboration between the emergency services could deliver real savings across the country and ensure that this very generous financial settlement delivers even greater reductions in crime and even more police officers on the frontline.

Mike Penning: We are seeing that sort of collaborative work across the country and some of it is being paid for by the innovation fund, for which the different forces, emergency services and local authorities are putting in bids. But this goes much further than just working in the same station; it is also about training together. As you might know, Mr Speaker, I used to be a fireman years ago. I may have mentioned that before and I may have to mention it a few more times. There are only two of us in the House, but we are very proud of what we did.
	In those days, it was very rare to train or work with the other emergency services unless you were physically on the same job. If hon. Members go round their constituencies and ask people in the emergency services when they last did a forward exercise with the fire service, the ambulance service or, in some parts of the country, the coastguard service, they will find that it happens very rarely. That is often due to logistical pressures, but those pressures do not exist if two or more services are in the same building and can share the same yard and do the same training.
	Going back to Winchester, not only is the fire station in the same building as the police station but the yard is jointly used and at the back of the yard is the armed response unit, along with the armoury and the ranges. All this has been built on what was going to be just a fire station. When we talk to those brilliant professionals who look after us every day and ask them about the training they are doing, we find that firefighters are being trained as paramedics, as is the case in Hampshire. Sadly, in the case of a road traffic collision, the ambulances might not always get their first, even though the incident has been reported and people are trapped. I know how difficult it was when we were at incidents such as those. It is not just a question of how many ambulances there are. When you have a really bad smash on the motorway, it is really difficult to get the emergency services through. You would think that everybody would get out of the way, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, they do not.
	What is happening now is that fire personnel are being trained to keep people alive. I am not just talking about first aid certificates or the use of defibrillators, although that is a really good innovation. By the way, the cashiers at my local Tesco’s know how to use defibrillators, and that is a great asset, which also saves people’s lives. However, when dealing with a major trauma, it is vital to have the skills that I saw the firemen and women in Hampshire using. I was crying out for those skills when I was in the fire service.

Andrew Gwynne: I want to take the Minister back to the answer he gave me some moments ago. Of course it is not my intention to scare people, but the statistics show that crime numbers are going up in Greater Manchester. Of course this might be due in part to people now reporting crimes that they would previously not have reported, but does the Minister accept that people also need to have confidence that there are adequate numbers of police officers to investigate those crimes? Surely the 20% reduction in the number of police officers in Greater Manchester will not help to create public confidence.

Mike Penning: That really depends on where those officers were in the first place. Were they working in the communities and on the beat, or were they doing desk jobs? The truth of the matter is that, while we have had a decrease in officers around the country, there are more in front-line duties now than there were in 2010. The other thing the hon. Gentleman might want to ask his local police and crime commissioner, if he is really worried about the funding—even though there would have been a 10% cut under a Labour Government—is why his police force is holding £71 million in reserves.

Khalid Mahmood: May I plead with the Minister to look urgently at the rise in gun crime in the west midlands? Will he consider providing resources to try to fill the gap? We have had more than 20 shootings over the past six months, including six over the bank holiday period. There have been 41 arrests and 24 recoveries of weapons and ammunition. Great work has been done by the West Midlands police force, but this work can be continued only if we have additional resources, on a project-by-project basis if need be. This has become a really serious issue over the past 12 years and we have worked hard to bring the crime figures down, but please could the Minister look into the possibility of providing additional support?

Mike Penning: I saw reports of those shootings on the news and I got reports across my desk as well. Our thoughts must be with the families of those affected. We must praise the fantastic work of the local police in making those arrests, and let us hope that they get prosecutions as well. That is crucial, because public confidence is created when the police get prosecutions and the criminal justice system becomes involved.

Catherine West: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) mentioned the shootings in his constituency. There was a terrible drive-by shooting in Wood Green last summer, involving mistaken identity. A baker who was coming out of his bakery to take a break was shot, and the perpetrator drove off. The case is still unsolved. Can the Minister rule out the possibility of that being connected to the cut in police numbers?

Mike Penning: Why anybody would get in a car, drive off, open the window and shoot someone is beyond me, and probably beyond the comprehension of anybody in this House. What we do know, however, is that the police forces around the country are doing a fantastic job. We have just heard of the arrests that have taken place. So, simply to say, “That is happening just because you cut the money” is a really, frankly, silly, silly comment.

Debbie Abrahams: rose—

Catherine West: There are orphans who are suffering as a result of that—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we need to be clear whose intervention is being taken. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) will have to express herself on another occasion or elsewhere in the debate. I think the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) is intervening.

Debbie Abrahams: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have another tale of woe. There have been approximately 12 burglaries in the past 10 days in the Saddleworth villages of Greenfield and Uppermill, and I have some very worried constituents. I totally agree with my hon. Friends: we cannot possibly say that there is no link between such events and the front-line cuts to staff in the Greater Manchester police, which were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). What can the Minister say to my many constituents who have contacted me to say that they are very concerned about their safety? Surely this must be a priority for him.

Mike Penning: The fact that it is a priority is exactly why the Chancellor stood at this Dispatch Box and said that he would make a very generous settlement. No one dreamed we would get that settlement, but that money will come through. There are no cuts going forward, even though that is exactly what you would have had if a Labour Minister had been standing here.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister is making a strong case. Is it not important to trust the professionals in the police service? We do not rely on the Labour party’s mooted 10% cut; we trust the professionals. He will know that the terrible Joanna Dennehy murders around Peterborough could not have been solved by the Cambridgeshire constabulary alone, and that it had to work with other constabularies such as Norfolk in order to attain the critical mass in forensics and other back-up services necessary to solve the crimes. We trust our local professional police officers.

Mike Penning: My hon. Friend has just touched on a point that I was going to make about collaboration. None of the 43 police forces around the country—not even London’s, with all its size and capabilities—can police alone. They need help across the board. The East Midlands regional organised crime unit is doing fantastic work, for example. And in my own region—the Eastern region—capabilities that were always exercised, with difficulty, in separate local forces are now being spread across the region. [Interruption.]

Andy Burnham: rose—

Mike Penning: I have been called many things since I have been in this House, and before I came here, but “frit” is not one of them. I give way to the shadow Home Secretary.

Andy Burnham: I am glad to hear it, because I never did think that the Minister was in that category. He is saying a few things that are worrying me. He stood there a few moments ago and said that there were to be no real-terms cuts to the police. That is simply untrue and I hope that he will correct the record before this debate ends. The other thing he just said was that there were more officers in front-line positions. A workforce survey that came out last week showed that his Government cut police officers by 18,000 in the last Parliament. Is he seriously standing there today and saying that, despite that cut of 18,000, there are more police officers on our streets?

Mike Penning: I know the Labour party are desperately trying to find a reason to vote against our very generous funding settlement, even though they would have liked to make it a really difficult settlement by cutting it by 10%. What I actually said was that there are more operational police officers on duty now on the frontline than there were in the past. That is what I have said at this Dispatch Box time and time again. Perhaps, when we hear the shadow Minister’s arguments as to why there should have been greater cuts—I should say cuts, because we are not going to cut at all—he will tell us what front-line services we would have lost. We need to ask that, because the money would have had to come from somewhere.

Rehman Chishti: There has been a lot of talk about cuts, and indeed about the horrific issue of gun crime, but the issue of counter-terrorism and national security is also linked here. Will the Minister clarify that this Government, in 2015-16, will be increasing spending on counter-terrorism by more than £650 million, which shows our commitment on national security?

Mike Penning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. We fund counter-terrorism from a separate budget, and that is enormously important. We have a Minister of State who specifically deals with that task. It is really interesting that even though I have heard Opposition Members say today, “This is terrible! This is going to happen; this has happened,” actually the 43 authorities welcomed the Chancellor’s Budget, and I have had really interesting discussions with them, in some of the areas represented by Members who have complained today about the settlement. That is what this debate is supposed to be about: it is about a very generous settlement, which we would not have had if we had not won the arguments with the Chancellor.

Catherine McKinnell: I am slightly baffled by the Minister’s comments. Northumbria police force expects to have lost about £150 million between 2010 and 2020, and its workforce has already been cut by a quarter, split equally between police officers and police staff. Will he clarify in what way that is a generous settlement?

Mike Penning: Let me go over the arguments. We inherited a fiscal mess left by the previous Administration. We had to make really difficult financial decisions, including on policing. The police forces did brilliantly well. They were genuinely very worried that we would extend that approach into 2015-16, but we did not do that, which is why they are saying thank you to us for not making 10% cuts to policing, which is what Labour’s Front-Bench team would have done.

Stephen Hammond: I have been listening carefully to the Minister. I met my local borough commander last Friday, and although there are of course challenges, he told me that some of the reforms will actually make policing more effective. More importantly, he stressed to me that there are now as many police on the frontline in the Met as there have ever been.

Mike Penning: My hon. Friend has brought me on to an interesting point. The Friday before last, I was at Hendon with the commissioner, taking the salute—he took the salute and I nodded my head, because I was not in uniform—of the 135 new recruits coming through. These are brand-new police officers wanting to join the Met, coming through their training and passing out on parade, and 60% of them live in London. That is because of the reforms that the commissioner has introduced, whereby he has said, “You need to live in London for five years unless you have served in the armed forces.” That figure will be boosted again; I was speaking to the officer in charge of the training there and I was told that in excess of 2,000 officers are expected to be training at Hendon in the new buildings at the Peel centre, which the investment is being put into. We should be really proud of the numbers in London.

Christopher Pincher: We all know that one perennial problem of policing has been the amount of time that police officers have not been able to spend on the beat. Does the Minister agree that when good police and crime commissioners use innovative technology to help those police officers spend more time on the beat in places such as Staffordshire, it can mean as many as 100 extra police officers on the beat, at a 10th of the cost?

Mike Penning: There are a myriad different ways we can give the required confidence to our constituents, with our uniformed officers out there and others from the community who are doing this as well. I pay tribute to our specials, who do not get mentioned as much as they should. They do a fantastic job. We have to look carefully at the situation in certain parts of the country where their numbers have rocketed into their thousands, whereas in other parts of the country we do not have as many as we would like.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mike Penning: I will give way once more and then I will come to my closing remarks.

Victoria Atkins: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Conservative candidate in the Lincolnshire PCC elections on introducing special constables—parish constables—who will look after the very remote rural areas of Lincolnshire, giving those communities a policing figure they know they can go to for help and advice?

Mike Penning: I have spent quite a bit of time in Lincolnshire over the years, and was lobbied extensively by the chief constable and the commissioner for a change to the funding formula. The sort of innovation we have seen in places such as Lincolnshire, with the parish specials, rural mounted specials and so on, is exactly the sort of thing we would like to see replicated.

Edward Leigh: In Lincolnshire, we are very grateful to this Minister, because he has done more than any other Minister to come up and spend days with the police force. We very much appreciate what he has done with this grant and so on. We have, however, had a letter from the chief constable saying that because of historical problems, increases in police salaries and increases in national insurance contributions, he still has a significant funding deficit. Will this wonderful Minister, with all his knowledge of Lincolnshire, just say a word about what more he can do to help us, please?

Mike Penning: I know exactly what my hon. Friend is saying and I know exactly what is in the letter, because I have received a very similar one. Lincolnshire’s force was asking me to change the funding formula to make it fairer for Lincolnshire; a lot of constabularies and a lot of people in this House have asked for similar over the years. We are continuing to look at that and I will make sure I get it right, but this settlement is a lot better than Lincolnshire thought it was going to get and a lot better than it would have been, had there been a Labour Minister at this Dispatch Box.

Rehman Chishti: On collaboration, will the Minister pay tribute to the work being done by Essex and Kent police on their joint serious crime directorate, which looks at using intelligence sharing to ensure that serious and organised crime in the port county is dealt with swiftly and effectively?

Mike Penning: That type of collaboration is so important. For too many years forces have sat in silos, as have individual emergency services. They are coming together and one reason for that is that the austerity measures we had to bring in have made them think outside the box.

Stewart Jackson: rose—

Mike Penning: I will give way one last time and then I will sum up.

Stewart Jackson: I am anxious to ensure that the Minister does not peak too soon. First, I pay tribute to Cambridgeshire constabulary for the excellent work it has done on issues relating to domestic violence and sexual offences. Does he agree that one reason for the slight spike in the reporting of those crimes is that many more victims feel comfortable about approaching the police now and feel that they will be treated fairly in the pursuit of their complaints?

Mike Penning: My hon. Friend has touched on a really important point. I had the honour the other week of continuing the funding for the victims’ groups around the country for the next three years. One really important thing is that our constituents, no matter what has happened to them, have the confidence to come forward, and that they will be listened to with compassion. For too many years that was not the case.
	I know that a lot of colleagues want to get in and I have been generous in taking interventions, but may I say that we need to make sure that our constituents are made aware of how generous this settlement is for the next four years to 2020? We are still in very difficult financial times, when we are continuing to pay for the maladministration of this country’s finances by the previous Labour Administration and previous Ministers who are now sitting on the Labour Front Bench. I am looking forward to listening to positive comments about our police force. I am enormously proud to be the Minister for Policing, Fire and Criminal Justice and Victims. It is a long title, it is a big job and I am very proud to have it.

Jack Dromey: I bow to no one in my admiration for our police service. Robert Peel uttered these immortal words:
	“The police are the people and the people are the police.”
	There has been a constant in our country for two centuries: the British model of policing by consent, which we built on when we were in government. When Labour left office, there were record numbers of police on the streets—16,500 more than in 1997 and, in addition, nearly 17,000 police community support officers. Neighbourhood policing, which we built, was popular with the public. It worked, and we saw a generation of progress on crime. We had local policing, local roots, local say and local partnership working. We built up neighbourhood policing and the public valued it. It was one of Labour’s greatest achievements.

Jake Berry: On the issue of bowing to no one, will the hon. Gentleman support this settlement today, or will he bow to the shadow Home Secretary’s suggestion of a 10% cut?

Jack Dromey: We will oppose this settlement today. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice said from the Dispatch Box that police funding is being protected. That is simply not true, and I will lay out my case in due course.
	We are still learning some painful lessons from the past. There are still wrongs to be righted; the police are not perfect. We need to raise standards, and we should always hold the police to the highest standards in the public interest. The first thing I wish to say to the
	Policing Minister and the Home Secretary is that the British model of neighbourhood policing is celebrated across the world. The model was responsible for a generation of progress on crime, but the Home Secretary’s remorselessly negative tone about the police, taken with ever fewer police officers doing ever more work, has demoralised the service, and we are now seeing soaring levels of sickness and stress.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is absolutely right to go back to the Labour success of neighbourhood policing. Is he as dismayed as I am about what is happening now? In my own constituency, neighbourhood policing is withering away, and officers are now being put on response duties. I accept that such duties are necessary, but so too is neighbourhood policing. This is undermining public confidence in the ability of the police to listen to the needs of communities.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Typically, what we see all over the country is a neighbourhood sergeant responsible for perhaps one or two teams and a number of PCSOs. Those who were previously part of the neighbourhood teams are now being put on response duties. Following a Home Office decision in 2012 there was a reclassification whereby some people on response were given local neighbourhood policing duties, even if they spent all their time on response, so the earlier assertions about our having more officers on the frontline are simply not right.

Diana R. Johnson: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that Humberside police—I do not think it is the only police force in this position—has been judged inadequate by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary? We have the lowest level of police officers since the 1970s. Will the shadow Minister reflect on what that means for neighbourhood policing?

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Surveys show that, increasingly, the public complain about a lack of visibility of local police officers. Neighbourhood policing is absolutely essential. It is not just about detecting criminals, but about preventing crime, diverting people from crime, building good community relationships, and bringing in people to co-operate in identifying criminals. Losing the benefits of neighbourhood policing will have an effect. At the most serious end of terrorist crime, the former head of counter-terrorism, Peter Clarke, said that neighbourhood policing is “the golden thread” that runs from the local to the global. He said that the patient building of good relationships with communities means that communities co-operate in identifying wrongdoing—in this case, it is wrongdoing of the worst possible kind.

David Hanson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are not just talking about crime? When we have floods in our communities, public order parades, and football matches, the police are the first port of call. Policing is not just about crime.

Jack Dromey: My right hon. Friend, who served with such distinction as a police Minister, is absolutely right. This is about the wider duties of the police service. The
	College of Policing has done some very interesting work. By the way, the National Audit Office has called on the Home Secretary to have a better understanding of what the police actually do. It is not just about that element that is focused on crime, but about the wider responsibilities.
	The police, together with the fire service, the ambulance service, the Environment Agency and others, guarded premises to prevent looting during the floods. That is just one example of what they do. I have another example from last Saturday. I was deeply impressed to see West Midlands police, with other police services from West Mercia and Warwickshire, policing the pernicious Pegida attempt to march through Birmingham, keeping apart counter-demonstrators and those who were there in support of the march. They worked with the community and did a tremendous job. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right in what he said.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend might have heard me ask the Minister to comment on burglaries in Saddleworth, in which there has been almost a 50% increase. Does he wish to comment on what the Minister said? Greater Manchester police have just confirmed that there has been a reduction of 2,000 front-line posts.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If we look at the statistics overall, we see that areas of volume crime have gone down—I will come on to explain in more detail why Government claims about crime falling are simply not true. Car crime has gone down, and houses by and large are now more difficult to break into. Having said that, there are spates of burglaries all around the country. What is essential is good neighbourhood policing. Let me give an example from my own constituency. The admirable Sergeant Simon Hensley set up a canoe club on Brookvale lake. I literally launched it in a canoe—[Interruption.] It was one of my most terrifying moments as a Member of Parliament. Hundreds of young people joined the club, and very good relationships were formed. One benefit was that when there was an outbreak of burglary in Stockland Green, they came forward and said they knew who the bad lads were. Again, it is that neighbourhood policing that is so important. There is no substitute for it. It is the bedrock of policing in our country.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. It would be churlish not to accept that there was progress around community policing, but that is not the whole story. Does he agree that one legacy of the previous Labour Government was an inordinate amount of bureaucracy and paperwork, which kept many front-line police officers in the station, processing data, rather than out catching criminals? This Government have tackled that, which is why we have seen a reduction in numbers and a significant reduction in recorded crime.

Jack Dromey: Let me give a straight answer. I think that we did prescribe too much and too often. It was right therefore that, by consensus across political parties, the previous Government became less prescriptive. Certain things will always need to be prescribed, but I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in relation to the very serious act of gun crime, neighbourhood policing is crucial in piecing together all the small bits of information that might secure a conviction? Will he assist me in highlighting the tragic shooting in Wood Green that I mentioned earlier? There are orphans who wish to know what happened to their father, who, in a case of mistaken identity, was shot in a drive-by shooting as he stepped out of his workplace. They would like to have that crime solved.

Jack Dromey: It is difficult to comment on the detailed circumstances of that crime other than to say that, of course, what we need is capacity to catch those people who are guilty of murder, which is one of the most heinous crimes. I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me if I repeat what I said in a previous answer, but key to that is good neighbourhood policing, as it is vital for intelligence gathering. If we run down neighbourhood policing, the inevitable consequence is that it is more difficult to detect criminals of that kind.

Stephen Hammond: I agree with the shadow Minister that neighbourhood policing is key. Does he agree with the borough commander whom I met again last Friday, who made the point that although the numbers in some of the neighbourhood units are down, they are now dedicated to that unit and that neighbourhood, so although numbers are lower, they are more effective?

Jack Dromey: That depends what we are talking about. For example, the West Midlands police service has sought to maintain dedicated numbers in high risk, high demand areas, but taken as a whole the numbers have been going down. There will be variations at any one point in time, but the evidence is clear: there has been a remorseless reduction in the number of police officers and a hollowing-out of neighbourhood policing.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Jack Dromey: I have given way about nine times. Let me make a little more progress, then I will gladly give way.
	I celebrate the fact that, as the police bravery awards show, we are policed by ordinary men and women doing extraordinary things, often in the most difficult circumstances. They deserve better than what happened in the run-up to the comprehensive spending review. Yesterday I was privileged to speak, together with Conservative Ministers, at the 20th anniversary of the docklands bomb. Afterwards I talked to police officers, brave men and women, with an outstanding sense of duty and a powerful sense of obligation to their community. They talked to me about the mounting pressures they face—the challenges of counter-terrorism and the impact of the past five years—and they were dismayed that their Government had contemplated cutting the police service in half. As I will come on to say, that is precisely what had been contemplated.
	In my constituency, Erdington, I saw one PCSO in tears—loyal, long-serving, much loved—describing how awful the uncertainty had been in the build-up to the comprehensive spending review. It should never have happened. After cutting 25% in the last Parliament, right up until the night before the comprehensive spending review the Government were contemplating a further 22% cut in this Parliament. The Home Secretary failed to stand up for the police service. We were on the brink of catastrophe, as a police officer said to me but yesterday, which would have had very serious consequences, demonstrating a disregard for the first duty of any Government, maintaining the safety and security of its citizens.
	Under pressure from the public, the police and the Labour party, the Chancellor U-turned and a promise was made. I shall read it out, as the Policing Minister has clearly forgotten it. The Chancellor said:
	“I am today announcing that there will be no cuts in the police budget at all. There will be real-terms protection for police funding. The police protect us, and we are going to protect the police.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]
	In parallel, there were big cuts elsewhere—for example, to Border Force—but let us examine that statement to the House. That promise to the public, to the police and to Parliament has been broken. The Chancellor said he would protect the police, but now we know that police budgets are still being cut.
	The force covering my constituency, West Midlands police, is excellent. In the next financial year it will suffer a £10.2 million cut in real terms, contrary to what the Policing Minister said earlier. Yes, the £5 mechanism is being used, but it will raise only £3.3 million, so there will be a £7 million overall cut in real terms.

Mary Glindon: On the precept, is my hon. Friend aware that a force such as Northumbria, which, under our excellent police and crime commissioner, Vera Baird, has made every saving possible, has cut into its reserves and has had the lowest precept hitherto, has had to accept that £5 maximum with great regret, just to try to maintain services?

Jack Dromey: Indeed. I pay tribute to somebody who was a great parliamentarian and who has been a great police and crime commissioner. The work that Vera Baird has done on domestic violence and, more generally, on violence against women and girls is admirable and first class. My hon. Friend is right. As I shall say later, Northumbria, like the West Midlands force, has been hit twice as hard as leafy Tory shire police forces down south.

Barbara Keeley: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of our police forces are stretched just by the crime that they are currently dealing with? In Salford we have had 19 shootings in a period of 19 or 20 months. On some weekends there have been four shootings on the same day. Protection of the public is important, but should our police force be so stretched in Greater Manchester when they have that to deal with?

Jack Dromey: There has been an £8.5 million cut in real terms, contrary to what was said at the Dispatch Box. After a generation of progress, and despite the heroic efforts of the police and crime commissioner, Tony Lloyd, and the Greater Manchester police service, we are seeing profoundly worrying signs of crime starting to rise once again.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is right to point out the sleight of hand by the Government. The real unfairness to areas such as the west midlands and Greater Manchester is this: we have a relatively low council tax base, so the precept brings in relatively small amounts of funding—nothing like the amounts of funding that are being cut by the central Government grant. Added to that, those are the areas that tend to have higher crime rates, so need is not matched by resources. It is a double whammy for the urban areas and it penalises places such as Greater Manchester.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend sets out the case powerfully. There is no question but that need does not determine the way this Government allocate funds, whether to the police service or to local government. I will return to that point.
	There was another broken promise. The Prime Minister said in 2010 that he would protect the frontline. Not true—12,000 front-line officers have since been lost. It was a broken promise and, to add insult to injury, not only are the Tories continuing to slash police funding, but they are expecting the public to pay more for it. The Tory sums rely upon local people being charged an extra £369 million in council tax. Our citizens and the communities we serve are being asked to pay more for less.

Oliver Heald: In a forward-looking county such as Hertfordshire, which has the pressures of supporting London and Luton and major roads to police, it has been possible to use more police on the frontline and more modern methods. In Hertfordshire the police precept is being cut as the funding settlement is perfectly adequate.

Jack Dromey: Every week I see innovation in the police service; of that there is no doubt. In relation to road policing, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, there are profoundly worrying signs that the progress made over many years, particularly under the Labour Government, in reducing road deaths, for example, is starting to reverse as a consequence of the cuts in road policing and other aspects, such as CCTV cameras. I am totally in favour of innovation and greater collaboration—for example, between the police and fire service—but ultimately there is a simple, grim reality: the remorseless downward pressure on our police service. The people who are paying the price are not just our police officers, but the public we serve.

Oliver Heald: rose—

Jack Dromey: I shall refer later to old Macmillanites. On the basis that I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman to be one, I give way.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman is very generous, though I shall not comment on that. Does he agree that police force reserves around the country are substantial—Hertfordshire has £48 million, but in one case the figure is as high as £71 million.

Jack Dromey: If I can put it this way, that is a canard, as we used to say in the T and G. Of course it is right that reserves should be used. Looking at the pattern across the country, however, why are they typically built up? The reasons range from investment in bringing three or four buildings into one, as the West Midlands police service has done in Birmingham, through better technological equipping of our police service—we need a technological revolution in policing—to planning ahead to recruit more police officers so that, even if the overall numbers are falling, the service is at least bringing in some fresh blood. If we look at the various studies that have been done of police reserves, including by the National Audit Office, we see that the line of argument has never stood up that all will be well if only the police use the hundreds of millions of pounds that are somehow there.
	Opposition Members are with the police when they say efficiency savings can be made. Crucially, in the run-up to the last general election, we identified £172 million that could be saved through mandated procurement alone. Other measures included full cost recovery on gun licences, ending the bizarre arrangement whereby the police have to subsidise the granting of gun licences. If the Government had embraced that plan, we would have saved 10,000 police officers in the first three years of this Parliament.
	Efficiency savings are one thing, but, ultimately, decisions have to be made. We listened to the police, and in the light of the tragic attacks in Paris, they said, “We think we can make up to 5% efficiency savings”—I stress again that we ourselves identified how one could do that. However, it was clear beyond any doubt that the chilling message from the police, who are so vital in maintaining our security, was that going beyond that would compromise public safety. I will never forget the powerful letter from Mark Rowley, Scotland Yard’s head of counter-terrorism, who said that, post-Paris, we have to look at things afresh. Ultimately, numbers matter.

Rehman Chishti: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Dromey: No, forgive me if I finish this important point.
	Numbers matter. In the light of attacks such as Paris, we need surge capacity on the one hand, and neighbourhood policing for intelligence gathering on the other hand. We also need more firearms officers; we have 6,000, which is 1,000 down from 2008. We listened to the police.
	Several hon. Members  rose—

Jack Dromey: I will give way to somebody who has not already spoken.

Simon Hoare: It is all well and good bandying numbers around and saying we must have the capability to make a surge in the number of armed officers. However, if the leader of the Labour party is to be believed, what are those officers going to do? Just wave their guns at these people and say, “Oh, please stop what you’re doing.” Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to dissociate himself from his leader’s remarks about what armed policemen can and cannot do?

Jack Dromey: The Opposition—all of us—have a very simple view. Perhaps I can draw a parallel with the deeply moving statement I heard one of the Parisian officers make about when he and his colleagues went into the Bataclan club. Innocent men and women, including British citizens, were being terrified by jihadis practising the most appalling form of terrorism. That officer said, “I had to make a split-second judgment. I made it, and as a consequence I saved lives.” That is our very, very clear position.

Andrew Stephenson: I am slightly confused, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me. He says that savings can be made. Today’s report includes a real-terms increase in anti-terror funding. Why, therefore, is the Labour party opposing this very generous settlement?

Jack Dromey: After Paris, the Government made a series of announcements—there was also one that pre-dated Paris, but that was about the Investigatory Powers Bill. We have to get the balance right, but we said, “Yes, we support the Government’s broad approach”—that we need enhanced means, for example, to combat those who use the dark net. We supported the Government in making £1.9 billion more available for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. We supported them when they said that additional resources would be made available for the British Army for counter-terrorism. Ultimately, however, it came down to this: Chris Sims, the former chief constable in the west midlands, and Bernard Hogan-Howe here in London say that the majority of the leads that result in the detection of terrorists come through good neighbourhood policing. If we have continuing downward pressure on neighbourhood policing and the hollowing out of neighbourhood policing, that will impact, in Mark Rowley’s words, on the eyes and ears of the counter-terrorism effort. It is not enough, therefore, simply to equip the special services and the special forces with additional powers; neighbourhood policing is key on every front, particularly counter-terrorism.
	The simple reality is that neighbourhood policing will continue to be hollowed out. Some 18,000 officers have been lost since the current Prime Minister took office in 2010. Some 1,300 have gone in the last six months alone. Today confirms that the Tories’ back-door cuts to police forces will inevitably lead to further police officer losses. It appears that the Government are oblivious to the consequences of their actions. Hugh Orde, the former head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, as it was called, is right when he says that a generation of progress is being reversed.
	Police in the 21st century face the new challenges of terrorism, cybercrime and child sexual exploitation and abuse. Undoubtedly, the threats to British security in the 21st century demand a modernised, more responsive and better equipped police service, not a smaller one. In defence of the Government’s position, the Police Minister said crime is falling, but that is not true: it is changing. In July, when an estimated 6 million cyber and online crimes are included in the official statistics, crime will nigh on double.
	Resources are diminishing, just when demand is soaring. We face not just the three challenges that I mentioned; police recorded crime is rising, and some of the most serious crimes have soared to the highest levels in years. There has been a major increase in knife crime, which is up 9%. There has been a 27% rise in violent crime, including a 14% increase in the murder rate, while sexual offences have gone up 36%. Reported rape figures are the highest since 2003. Victims are also being let down, with half of cases closed without a suspect being identified.
	Increasingly, the police are left to pick up the pieces, as other public agencies are slashed. Who, for example, goes after looked-after children if council social services departments are badly depleted?

Barbara Keeley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jack Dromey: I am going to conclude my remarks, because I have been—forgive me if I say so—generous with interventions, and I want hon. Members to have the maximum time to make contributions to this important debate.
	The Home Secretary does not seem to understand the challenges to the modern police service or its complexity. Despite massive and growing challenges, not only are police budgets being cut, but the funding formula fiasco in which the Home Office misallocated hundreds of millions of pounds of police funding means that the doomed review of the unfair funding formula has been delayed for another year. We have a stop-gap settlement of only a year, with more uncertainty and more unfairness. My force—West Midlands—and Northumbria face cuts that are double those that Surrey will receive.
	As I was saying earlier when the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) intervened, we have had the tradition of Robert Peel, but there has also been the tradition of Harold Macmillan: a tradition of noblesse oblige, of care, of meeting need, and of serving the national interest in one nation. Macmillanites are increasingly an endangered species in the Conservative party, because both in this settlement and in the local government settlement that will be debated later, there has been a grotesque unfairness of approach where need has been ignored in favour of political heartlands being looked after.
	I want to ask the Minister three questions. First, on an important detail, where exactly is the funding for the international capital city grant coming from? Why, in the published information, is it not included in the core police settlement figures? Secondly, when will he finally replace the broken funding formula and give forces the long-term certainty they need to modernise and address the challenges of the 21st century? He expects to implement the new formula in the 2017-18 financial year, but we will need a new formula by the end of this year, at the very latest. Will he even begin to make progress on that in the near future? Thirdly, when will he stop this financial rollercoaster and finally be frank with the public and police about the cuts that he and the Home Secretary intend to impose?
	Yes, we will vote against this police grant settlement, because for Labour Members the first duty of any Government and of any Parliament is the safety and security of their citizens. Yes, we will vote against it, because that is what is at risk if we continue down this path of remorseless reduction in the numbers of police officers. Quite simply, the time has come to put public safety first and to cut crime, not cut cops.

John Stevenson: I would like to say a few words about police funding and, in particular, its significance for policing in Cumbria. There are two key issues: first, the police budget itself, which we are discussing; and secondly, the police funding formula, which is for the future but of equal importance. Before doing so, I would like to make one or two general observations.
	It is well documented that Carlisle and Cumbria experienced serious flooding before Christmas. This was a very large local emergency. The Cumbrian constabulary rose to that challenge brilliantly. Its officers showed leadership, offered practical support and co-ordinated the emergency services. They also showed a lot of empathy. I remember meeting one PC who had himself been flooded, and instead of being at home, he was out there on duty helping everybody else. That demonstrated to me the importance that the police have over and above their normal duties. I pay tribute to the Cumbrian police and crime commissioner, Richard Rhodes. He has led Cumbria extremely well in a mature and professional way, and he has cross-party and widespread support throughout the county. This again demonstrates to me that it was right to create the PCCs. They should continue, and I will certainly support their continuation.
	On the two issues I mentioned, I first turn to police funding in general. The House will recall the debate initiated by the Opposition—it has already been mentioned—calling for a 10% cut in police funding. I welcome the Government’s decision not to follow the Opposition’s lead but to maintain and, indeed, increase funding for the police, in what we all recognise as still very difficult financial circumstances. This will be welcomed in Cumbria and has certainly been welcomed by the Cumbrian constabulary. It will also be welcomed across the country, in recognition of the fact that the police are an important part of our society. They are the lead emergency service. Given concerns about security and safety, this funding will give confidence to our communities.
	On the important issue of the police funding formula, I refer back to my earlier comments. The floods brought home to me how important it is that we have a Cumbrian police force, because it offered leadership, local knowledge and an ability to respond that I am not convinced would have been there had it been part of a larger, more remote force with headquarters elsewhere. The funding formula as consulted on would have had a dramatic and negative impact on Cumbria. Indeed, my local newspaper recognised this and ran a campaign that attracted a huge amount of support. That again demonstrated to me that support for the police and for a Cumbrian police force was deep-rooted.
	I was therefore delighted that the Minister was in listening mode when he took on board the potential problems and issues for places such as Cumbria and agreed to postpone, or pull back from, going ahead with his consultation on introducing a new formula. I now wait for the new consultation to come out. I take this opportunity to emphasise the key issues for my county—primarily, rurality and sparsity. There are half a million people in Cumbria, but if one took a map of Cumbria and superimposed it over London and part of the south-east, there would be 20 million. It is a huge area. We have poor infrastructure, with a large mountain range right across the middle of the county, and we are a long way from any urban centre. Manchester is two hours away; Glasgow is an hour and a half away; and even Newcastle is over an hour away. I therefore look forward to the consultation, and I will certainly participate in it.
	I give full support to the Government’s financing of our police as set out in the current settlement. I am glad to see that we are still the party of the police and the party of law and order.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who has put forward some important points for discussion. He may claim that his party is the party of the police and law and order, but let us make this an all-party issue, so that we can all praise the work of local police forces and all support the principles of the rule of law, and of law and order. I think that is something that will go across the whole House.
	The Minister began by paying tribute to the appointment of the new Serjeant at Arms, who was formerly at the Ministry of Justice but has now taken his place in the House. I join the Minister in welcoming his appointment, not just because of his huge qualities, but because he is the first ethnic minority Serjeant at Arms in the history of Parliament—though of course he was appointed absolutely on merit.

Mike Penning: As the Serjeant at Arms was not in his place when I paid tribute to him earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I repeat my tribute to him? Not only did I have the honour of giving him a reference for this job, but he comes from one of the great regiments of the British Army.

Keith Vaz: Those are two wonderful recommendations.

Jack Dromey: rose—

Keith Vaz: I see that we will now have another tribute to the Serjeant at Arms from the shadow Policing Minister.

Jack Dromey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Now that the Serjeant at Arms is in his place, I would like to say that I was privileged to shake his hand the other day. He is deeply welcome to this House; it is great for us to have him here. It is a long and honourable role within this House. Like my right hon. Friend, I celebrate the fact that we have the first BME Serjeant at Arms—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Dromey, can I just help out? The Front Benchers took well over an hour and there has been plenty of time. Everybody has welcomed the Serjeant at Arms, and so it should be. This is a debate on policing, and I know that the Chair of the Select Committee will not want to wander too far away again, because we do want to get through it, and we only have until three minutes past 4.

Keith Vaz: Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. We now move on, your having encouraged everyone to do so, to the debate on the police grant.
	I am very pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) in his place, because when he was Policing Minister, additional funding was provided, and the House therefore voted in support of every one of the motions that he put before it.
	May I, like others, pay tribute to my local police force? Tomorrow, the Leicestershire police force will celebrate its 180th anniversary at a ceremony in Leicester cathedral and then at the Guildhall. I pay tribute to my chief constable, Simon Cole, for the excellent work that he does, and to Sir Clive Loader, the police and crime commissioner. I want to say how sorry I am that Sir Clive will be standing down at the next election, because he has made a great contribution, on an all-party basis, to tackling crime in the local area. They have made a great team.
	We need to acknowledge, as others have done, what happens at a local level. Here we are in Parliament talking about global figures, but policing is about what happens to local people and what happens on the front line. We in the Home Affairs Committee are conscious of that fact when we discuss some of the big issues. As I have said to the Minister, the police funding formula means that my area is £5.6 million a year less well off than equivalent authorities, such as Derbyshire. The police and crime commissioner has recommended an uplift of 1.99%, which is the maximum amount permissible without a local referendum. On behalf of my local area, I welcome the fact that we see no further cuts in the figures that have been provided. However, as has been said, there are 17,000 fewer police officers than there were when the Government took office, and that is a matter of concern.
	As I have said to the Minister, I welcome the fact that he has decided to tackle police funding and to look at the problems with the formula. He came before the House and, in his own words—he was modest, as always—ate “humble pie”. He recognised that the whole funding formula procedure was a bit of a “shambles”, as the Select Committee stated in its report. I know that the shadow Minister would like to claim credit, on behalf of the Labour party, for stopping the Government in their tracks, but he should remember that the Home Affairs Committee conducted a thorough inquiry into the matter. One of our members, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is here following her astonishing assault on Assange during Prime Minister’s questions. I am not saying that the shadow Minister should not take a little bit of the credit, but he is not a Liberal Democrat; he does not have to take all the credit. The Select Committee had hearings, we considered evidence and we concluded that the process was, in the words of the report, a “shambles,” that needed to be looked at again. The Minister came before the House and agreed. It took Andrew White, the chief executive to the office of the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner, to tell the country that the formula was wrong; senior, learned and intelligent people in the Minister’s Department were unable to do so.
	I wrote to the Minister on 1 February to ask him for an update on the consultation on the police funding formula. He began an important process by agreeing to consult, and the Committee set out in our report the procedure that we thought he should follow. In our 10th recommendation, we even suggested a number of organisations that could be part of the process. I know that he respects the work of the Committee, because he has said so on a number of occasions.
	The Minister has told me that he wrote to me yesterday, but that letter has not arrived. When we discuss changes in policing, we talk about investment in IT, and I wonder whether the Minister’s private office might invest in email, because emailing me the letter would have been a quick way to ensure that I received it before the debate. We are all watching our emails and waiting for this letter, which was supposed to have been sent yesterday. I know that several of the Minister’s officials are here today, and perhaps nobody is in the office sending out emails. I would like to receive that letter, so that I can share it with other members of the Committee. I do not know what it will tell us, but I hope that it will say that the consultation process is about to begin. We do not want to run out of time.
	I believe the Minister when he says that he wants the widest possible consultation. He is right to say that he met me and every other Member who came to see him, and that is the right thing to do. However, unless we start the process and consult the chiefs, the police and crime commissioners, the National Police Chiefs Council and other interested parties, including Members of the House, we will not reach a final conclusion. Perhaps the letter will arrive before I finish speaking. We do not know, but we would like it to come as soon as possible.

Barbara Keeley: My right hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and effective speech. As part of the consultation, will he and the Home Affairs Committee take on board the fact, which I raised earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), that some police forces are peculiarly stretched by a local crime surge? In Salford, we have suffered from 21 shootings over 18 months. The hollowing out of neighbourhood policing, which we have talked about in the debate, is serious when the police have so much more to do because of crime surges such as the one we have seen in Salford. That really ought to be addressed.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have visited her constituency, and I know that the issues she talks about are important. At the end of the day, we need to give the police the resources that we need, but decisions about such things have to be handled locally. She is right to say that the problem needs to be addressed and monitored.
	I hope that the Minister might cover, in his closing remarks, the extension of the contract of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. It is important that we do not get into a position similar to that with water cannon, where the Mayor of London waited a whole year for a decision to be made on whether they should be used. The commissioner is due to appear before the Select Committee on 23 February to discuss that and other matters, and I hope that, by the time he appears, the Home Secretary will have written back to the Mayor to give some indication on the subject. Such stability and security at the top of the Met, which represents a fifth of our country’s policing budget and numbers, is extremely important. I remind the Minister that such decisions need to be made, in the interests of the policing service, the commissioner and Parliament.
	I want to raise some final points. The first is the wider issue of what exactly we want the police to do. One of the recommendations in our report was that the Government consider the question: what are the drivers of crime and police demand? Of course, we live in tough times, and the Government will blame the Opposition for what they did in government, but the issue remains that Parliament and the Government will always look carefully at resources. The police service needs to know exactly what the Government are prepared to fund. Are they prepared to fund more work on immigration? Police officers nowadays act as though they are immigration officers, because they have to deal with many issues that they did not deal with previously. The Minister and the House know how many cases that reach the custody suite involve people who are suffering from mental illness and should not be there in the first place, which means that police officers are being used as social workers. We know that meetings with local authorities and others, and big inquiries, take up a huge amount of time.
	When we begin the consultation on police funding and the new formula, the Minister needs to tell police forces exactly what the Government are prepared to fund. I know that the Government have turned their face against the idea of a royal commission, which the Committee favoured in the last Parliament. We need to look at what we want our police officers to do. They cannot do everything, but that is what they are being asked to do at the moment.

Rebecca Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have come to over-rely on our police for a lot of things? For example, there was some controversy in my constituency this year because the police were not able to police the Armistice Day march. When it came to it, however, plenty of local councillors and other volunteers were more than able to do that without using police time and resources, and it was a great success.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There are other people who can step in. As those of us who support football clubs—including Leicester City, who are currently leading the premier league—know, there are a lot of police officers on duty at football matches, but it is possible that part of their work could be done by stewards who are not warranted officers. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we do not need warranted officers to do everything.
	The Minister has a real opportunity this year to set his mark on the history of policing. He was prepared to tackle the issue of the police funding formula, and received the brickbats that people get, because there are winners and losers, when they try to deal with vested interests. This is a big opportunity: let us decide on a set of principles as a model that can be used for a generation. To do that, he must consult and he must begin such a consultation immediately.

Rebecca Harris: I am very grateful for the opportunity to add my comments to this important debate. Policing and local policing is a subject about which I feel very strongly and in which I take a great interest.
	Policing and crime rates are a huge concern to my constituents, as they are to all our constituents. My postbag, as regularly, I am sure, as those of other hon. Members, contains letters from constituents asking what the Government are doing to bring down crime rates. I welcome the reduction in crime during recent years, but I recognise the need to make savings. I commend the Home Office on the very tough decisions it took during the last Parliament. I express huge welcome for the announcement in the autumn statement that we will certainly keep police funding on a stable basis. I particularly welcome the flexibility over the precept, especially for forces with the lowest precepts in the country, such as Essex.
	Given my constituents’ natural concerns about current crime rates, I took it upon myself to enrol in the police service parliamentary scheme. I strongly recommend it to all hon. Members. It is quite a time commitment—at least 20 days are spent in different parts of the police force—but it has given me a very strong and valuable insight into the true pressures on our police, the challenges for modern policing, and the changes and innovations that the police need to bring in and are bringing in. I want to put on the record my enormous gratitude to Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh of Essex Police and all those I have been out with. They have made me feel extremely welcome and have been very supportive.
	I have had some extraordinary opportunities on the scheme. I have been out with the Juno teams, which are tackling domestic violence, and seen for myself the enormous efforts made by the police in their approach to domestic violence. For example, I have seen how quickly they have adopted our new stalking legislation and how closely focused they are on it. That is part of their approach to hidden harms.

Victoria Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the welcome police officers have given to the introduction of on-body cameras? One of the great hopes for the cameras is that they will greatly assist in prosecuting domestic violence cases.

Rebecca Harris: Absolutely. I have seen officers in action with their cameras, which they can use, for example, when entering the scene of a domestic dispute to which they have been called. As they arrive, they can record evidence of their own that they can use in court. When the victim of domestic violence is, for whatever reason, nervous, reluctant or intimidated about coming forward, they can prosecute on her behalf. That is an enormous innovation. It relies on the police remembering to turn the cameras on, however, so they are doing good training on that. It is a great innovation, and the police are very pleased to have it.
	I have visited a custody suite. Hon. Members will understand my reluctance to be photographed anywhere near the cells. I can well imagine the comments on webpages about the picture of any Member of Parliament in the cells. I have seen the pressures that the police face there, and the teething processes involved in trying, not without difficulty, to modernise and to move to new technology. I have been out with CID, and I have seen the forensic labs. I also went to a drugs factory, which was very interesting. A Member of Parliament does not often get the opportunity to go into a cannabis factory. I have also seen how the police are dealing with the problem of modern-day slavery, which they were not geared up to deal with in previous decades. I have seen the sensitivity with which they approach finding out about what they call the “gardener”, who is sometimes left in such factories without any real means of escape.
	There are big changes in the way that our police are policing and big differences in the kind of crimes they have to police. They are spectacular in standing up to the challenge of doing all that in difficult funding circumstances. I must say that I have been overwhelming struck by the sheer commitment and dedication of our police officers. I definitely expected to find professionalism, but I must admit that I did not anticipate just how passionate they are about their work and the extent to which they really care about the communities they serve. Again, I put on the record my thanks to them and to Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh for helping with the scheme, and I say to hon. Members, “Do it.” All hon. Members should take that opportunity, because it makes a huge difference.
	Essex police, whose motto is “Sworn to Serve”, has long been an efficient force. I could wax lyrical about Essex police for a long time, because when I was in publishing, we produced a book about the history of the constabulary. It is a very long, honourable and proud constabulary. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has repeatedly found that Essex police force provides better value for money than other police forces. It already has a very close programme of collaboration with Kent police, as was mentioned earlier, including significant sharing of back-office functions, and it is collaborating increasingly closely with other forces in the east of England. It also has one of the lowest reserves in the country, so it has not had the option of absorbing extra costs and pressures by reducing its reserves. That makes the fact that it has managed to be so successful in what it does all the more remarkable. It is right, however, that it should continually look for efficiencies to ensure that public money is spent on keeping the public safe.

Andrew Stephenson: My hon. Friend is making a very effective point about her local force. If I am called to speak, I intend to say very similar things about efficiencies in Lancashire police. Will she join me in welcoming the £55 million from the police innovation fund, which will help forces to continue to modernise and to create efficiencies in the way they operate?

Rebecca Harris: I absolutely welcome the announcement of those funds. A lot of things are already going on in the police, but it does cost money just to modernise and make improvements. I wish we did not have such an enormous debt in this country, but ultimately, in a strange way, the drive to create efficiencies means that, when our economy is back on an even keel and the money is again flowing in, our police service will be enormously efficient. Old practices, which have been stuck in place for many years, will have been ironed out.

John Stevenson: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that such innovations and making our police forces far more efficient have been due to the introduction of police and crime commissioners?

Rebecca Harris: Absolutely. I will come on to that point later, but the innovation of police and crime commissioners was an enormous achievement of the last Parliament. My police and crime commissioner has been highly visible, and much more so than the old police board that he replaced. To this day, people do not realise that such police boards even existed, but they know the name of their police and crime commissioner and are able to approach him.
	Essex police force remains very keen to see a review of the funding formula that determines individual police force allocations across the country. The changes to the formula proposed by the Home Office last year would have meant an increase of more than £10 million in the funding for Essex police. We hope that a review later this year will increase the amount of central funding for Essex.
	As I have said, Essex is an area with an historically low policing precept. I believe it is about £140 on average, compared with a national average of more than £180 for a band D householder. Essex police force is very proud to say that it has been a lean and efficient force for a long time. I recently surveyed my residents to ask whether they would be prepared to pay extra if that meant additional officers and greater police visibility. Unsurprisingly, the response was of course overwhelmingly positive.
	Because of the difficulties of the existing rules about how PCCs can put across their case in a referendum and about how such a referendum is triggered by a rise of 2% or higher, there has been real concern in Essex, with such a low precept, that we would only ever be able to have an increase of 1.99%. That would embed, in perpetuity, a disadvantage for such a lower-cost force compared with more expensive ones. I am very grateful to the Chancellor and Home Office Ministers for listening to that point. The Government are now allowing police and crime commissioners in areas with the lowest precepts to have flexibility in raising their precept. In Essex, that has made it possible to raise the base budget for Essex police by £3.8 million to £266.3 million this year. Frankly, it is right for forces with the lowest precepts to raise their precepts on local council tax payers, rather than call on central Government and national resources to get other members of the public, who may already be paying a higher price for the police in their local area, to provide funding through a higher grant allocation. This is the right and fair way forward, and it is understood by local residents.
	The current budget includes increased investment in specialist police officers and police staff to tackle child sexual exploitation, child abuse, serious sexual offences and domestic abuse. There will also be an increased investigative capacity to tackle those horrible crimes and greater support and safeguarding for victims. We now hear so much more about those hidden harms, which we did not used to talk about and recognise in the same way. As we have heard in this debate, the figures for domestic abuse, child abuse and other hidden harms have been rising, which has contributed to the appearance that violent crime is rising. I would contend, as I am sure would most police officers in my area, that these crimes are not rising. What is rising is the confidence of people to come forward and report them, knowing that they will be dealt with sympathetically. The police are taking a very different approach to such crimes and have had training in how to deal with them. They also wear cameras now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said, and other changes in legislation have been made.
	Within the budget, there will be greater investment in the training that is needed to equip officers to investigate internet-enabled crime and cybercrime, which are affecting individuals and businesses across the country. That subject is very topical this week.
	I welcome the autumn statement and the funding review, which will enable Essex police to keep many more PCSOs than it had planned and to make many positive innovations. Essex is lucky to have been served by such a fantastic police and crime commissioner in Nick Alston. I say unashamedly that he is the best police and crime commissioner in the country. He was recognised by his peers in an election on that basis. He has served as the inaugural police and crime commissioner at a time of real change and financial difficulty. We would not be in such good shape in Essex were it not for his sterling support for and challenge to the police. Far from being a faceless police board of the great and the good that no one knows about, his name is incredibly well known. I have only been able to accept his resignation because the highly able Roger Hirst is standing as the Conservative candidate in the police and crime commissioner elections.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have allowed the hon. Lady to cover a broad scope, but I do not want to get into campaigning and electioneering. This must not become an election campaign, rather than a debate on the police funding grant.

Rebecca Harris: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your indulgence.
	Despite the huge debt burden this country faces, I am proud that the Conservative Government have managed to protect police spending as much as they have. I very much welcome today’s motion.

David Hanson: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. May I join in the welcome to the Serjeant at Arms? We served at the Ministry of Justice together many years ago. I very much welcome his presence today.
	This debate is about the police grant—an issue that the Policing Minister skirted around. He talked about a range of issues, including rationalisation and making the police service more efficient, but he avoided the central question of the level of police funding that the Government are committed to for the next few years.
	However, I do not want to start on a negative note. On a positive note, I share with the Minister and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) an admiration for the work of the police and the professionalism of the police service. They do a marvellous job. We must never forget that the police put their lives on the line every day. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), as a Merseyside MP, will note that, because we recently lost an officer in Merseyside. Anyone who has been to the National Police Memorial Day, as the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and I have, will know that the police do a great job and put their lives on the line every day.
	This debate is about the level of financial support for the police service across England and Wales. It is clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said that the level of support is not sufficient to meet the needs of the police service over the next few years. Nobody will deny that crime has fallen in certain key areas, and that the police are trying their best to reduce crime in key areas. However, a key point has been missed in this debate: policing is not just about crime and whether crime is falling or otherwise.
	The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) put his finger on it when he spoke about the difficult circumstances that Cumbria has faced with the recent flooding. In such circumstances, the police are the first port of call. When there are public order events, such as football matches and parades—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington spoke about the recent events in Birmingham—the police are the first port of call. When there are road accidents or deaths in our communities, whether in houses or on the streets, the police are the first port of call. Because social services and health services are not always operational at weekends, on mental health issues the police are the first port of call 24 hours a day.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington spoke about the golden thread of neighbourhood policing that runs through the service. The police are about reassurance, visibility and evidence collecting, not just about solving crime. My worry is that today’s settlement will put the level of service at risk. No one can deny that the service is under pressure.
	I happen to live in a relatively low-crime area in north Wales. The police force there does a great job under Mark Polin. I met Inspector Dave Jolley in my local area last week. The police are doing a great job and the level of crime is relatively low. However, the budget is putting great pressure on the level of service. It is important to examine that, rather than to duck around the issues, as the Minister did today.

Kevan Jones: This Government clearly have a small-state Conservative view of the world, as we have seen in local government, which will be changed radically by this week’s settlement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the average member of the public wants is the reassurance of having police in their communities, and that what is being proposed in the small-state Conservative world that is being put forward is not what our voters want?

David Hanson: The constituents of north Wales and, I am sure, of Durham want a visible police force that engages with them locally, works with them locally and provides reassurance, as well as solving and preventing crime. The Minister has missed something extremely important. He has focused on crime falling in certain areas, which I accept it has—I will come on to the areas where crime has not fallen—but policing is about much more than solving crime.

Barbara Keeley: My right hon. Friend is making some very effective points. I have already raised the issue of gun crime, particularly in Greater Manchester. That will not be solved in any way other than through neighbourhood policing and working with the community. Our outgoing chief constable, Sir Peter Fahy, said before leaving his post that relationship building was needed with the community, so that people were confident to come forward and give the police information, without which the police cannot solve the gun crime that we have. In Moss Side, it took a long period of building such relationships to get that information out. That is the key point.

David Hanson: My hon. Friend makes her point very well. As she says, we need not just high-level policing but community intelligence and reassurance, and people who know their communities and who work at a local level.
	The Minister made great play of efficiency. Nobody will deny that we can make the service more efficient. He is absolutely right about the sharing of buildings and about procurement. He knows about the air contract and the vehicle contract. Those are reforms that we should be making to save money. However, the bottom line is that those efficiencies are not compensating local police forces for the long-term reduction in central Government grant. My police force in north Wales has made efficiency savings of £19.65 million over the past four years, but that has not compensated it for the loss of grant.
	The central point I want to put to the Minister, as I said in an intervention on him, is that the reductions in central Government grant are being compensated for by rises in the local precept. My local force area in north Wales has had a grant reduction of 18% over the four years. At the same time, there has been a 14.5% rise in the precept. My constituents are paying more in local taxes at a time when they are losing money in central Government grant.
	The point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) understands, is that the poorest areas do not have the council tax base that richer areas have to raise that amount of resource. A 1% or 2% rise in—dare I say it?—the constituency or council area where we are now, Westminster, will raise a hell of a lot more than a 1% or 2% rise in a community such as mine in north-east Wales. When the grant is cut to forces such as North Wales police, and we are expected to raise the local precept, it means that my constituents pay more locally for something that should be provided as part of a national service, whereby richer areas contribute to crime reduction in poorer areas or, indeed, in higher-crime areas. It is important that the Minister recognises that it is not simply a case of reducing the grant and hoping that we can raise that local precept, which he did not mention in any detail today, but of having a fair settlement that meets the needs of poorer communities or areas where crime is higher.
	It is important to place it on the record that, under the previous Labour Government, there were 18,000 more police officers than we have now. Crime consistently fell under that Labour Government. If we could look again, in the next three to four years while the Minister holds office, at how we respond to not only the efficiency agenda but the central Government grant agenda, he could do a great deal to help reduce crime and build reassurance.
	The Minister mentioned crime falling but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, violent crime has increased by 27% in the past year. On victim outcomes, for half the offences recorded in 2014-15, the case was closed without a single suspect being identified. Hate crime, disability crime, sexual offences and violence against women are starting to increase. There has been a 36% increase in sexual offences. For historical reasons, the reporting of sexual offences is also rising. I accept that car crime, shoplifting and other forms of crime are falling. Good—I am pleased about that, and we want crime to continue to be driven down. However, the Minister cannot avoid the fact that the funding settlement will mean at least a standstill for some authorities, and at worst, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington mentioned, a massive cut, particularly for those authorities that have the highest crime, the greatest challenge and the lowest council tax base from which to draw the resources.
	It is a little complacent of the Minister to say that all will be well because crime has fallen and forces are managing. My plea to him is to drive efficiency forward still further and perhaps even consider mergers, looking at some of the voluntary mergers that we have encouraged in the past, but not to pass on central Government grant cuts to areas that cannot meet the need, and need to raise money locally. The police service demands more. It is trying to do its best in a professional manner, but the settlement, given the new problems of increased terrorism, cybercrime, fraud and a range of other crimes, will not meet the challenge in the next four to five years. It will certainly not do so in the next year and I therefore support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington in asking the Minister to review it. I will cast my vote this afternoon to try to make him review it and I hope that others will join me at one minute past four.

Mr Speaker: I will now announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of a new Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. Four hundred and sixty votes were cast, with one spoilt ballot paper. The counting went to three stages, and 417 active votes were cast in that round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 209 votes. Mary Creagh was elected Chair with 258 votes. The other candidate in that round was Geraint Davies, who received 159 votes. Mary Creagh will take up her post immediately. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet for public viewing.
	Notwithstanding some of the courtesies that have developed around these matters in recent times, given that we are in the middle of a debate and people are waiting to speak, I should be most grateful if hon. Members expressed their congratulations and commiserations outside the Chamber.
	Again, I warmly congratulate the hon. Lady and I thank the other candidates for taking part in that important election.

Christopher Pincher: May I briefly congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on her election as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee? None of us will miss the tsunami of paper to which we have all been subjected over the past few days, but I am sure we will all miss the poetry of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). It may not have been from Palgrave’s “Golden Treasury”, but it was certainly entertaining.
	I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate on the police grant and pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), a former Policing Minister, who is very experienced in these matters, although I do not agree with everything that he says.
	I am certainly not always right.

Simon Hoare: No!

Christopher Pincher: You may be surprised to learn that, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, when police and crime commissioners were first mooted, I have to admit that I was sceptical. I am a Conservative and, like all Conservatives, wary of change, so I was not sure whether we should employ this radical procedure of appointing police and crime commissioners. I always remind myself of the words of the former Prime Minister, the great Marquess of Salisbury, who, when officials and Ministers visited him at Hatfield House to encourage him to do this, say that or think about the other, would press his fingers to his chin and say after a moment’s thought, “’Twere better not.” Governments of all stripes would do well when considering officials’ ideas to say, “’Twere better not.” We might all be better off.
	However, the Home Secretary was right, on police and crime commissioners, to say “’Twere better to do this” because they have transformed our police forces around the country and the way in which they spend their money, not least in my county of Staffordshire, where Matthew Ellis has done a tremendous job in introducing new technology. Hand-held tablets have reduced the amount of time that police officers have to work in their stations and has put them out on the beat. At a fraction of the cost, that has effectively created 100 new police officers in Staffordshire. As a result of Matthew Ellis’s reforms, there has not been an increase in the precept in the past four years, and he can balance the budget for the next four years without an increase in the precept.
	Other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), have mentioned body cameras. We call them “bobby cameras” in Staffordshire, which led the way with that innovation. They not only make it easier for the police to prosecute crime, but make it far more challenging for people to bring malicious and false accusations against the police. If the police are wearing cameras and can film their own behaviour, angry, often young people are far less likely to make untrue claims about the police.
	In Staffordshire, we have also led the way in introducing a cadet force. There are now 240 cadet officers between the ages of 14 and 17 working in and with the police to build their skills and work out whether they want a career in the police service. If money is spent effectively and considerately, we can have better policing, a community that feels safer, and a police force that has the tools it needs to do the job.

Kevan Jones: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but will he address the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson)? The central grant to counties such as Durham is far more important than the precept, given that even a large increase in our precept will not generate much cash because of the number of band A properties in County Durham. Does that not mean that there is no level playing field across the UK, given that the precept is not a way of generating any extra cash in places that contain large numbers of band A properties?

Christopher Pincher: I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I feel that he may be thinking that Staffordshire is some sort of green and leafy county. Staffordshire has Stoke in it, and areas of deprivation in Tamworth, Stafford and Burton. That county, which is led by Matthew Ellis, has managed to make a saving of
	£126 million, which is invested in technology and makes policing better in Staffordshire and—dare I say this?—better than in County Durham?

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Christopher Pincher: I will not give way because the House does not have much longer to debate this matter.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The House has lots of time. If you wish to give way, Mr Pincher, you must do so, but do not use the Chair as a debating point to say that we have cut the time down. That is not the case, no matter what the Whips might tell you.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful, as ever, for your guidance Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would not wish to impose on the time of my colleagues on both sides of the House, and I am sure that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) can make his own speech in his own good time. If he cannot, I am sure he will tweet about it later on.
	In conclusion, Staffordshire has an innovative police force that works collaboratively with the community and its police and crime commissioner. We have cut costs and put more police on the streets, we have introduced innovation, and our public are happy. I commend our police force and police and crime commissioner to other police forces around the country. I was wrong to say no to police and crime commissioners, and the Labour party is wrong to pour cold water on this grant settlement, which will deliver more money to the police. When it does, Staffordshire will lead the way.

Margaret Greenwood: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for his remarks about PC David Phillips whom we lost on Wirral last year. He died in the line of duty, doing the job that he did so well to protect the people of Wirral. He was a highly valued and dedicated officer, and I know that his loss is keenly felt.
	The Chancellor’s eleventh hour U-turn on police funding in November’s comprehensive spending review was welcome. The police and crime commissioner on Merseyside had been anticipating cuts of between £62 million to £100 million by 2019-20, which would have stretched to near breaking point the capacity of the Merseyside police force to do its job of keeping us safe. Cuts on that scale would have meant the loss of all police and community support officers and the mounted police section, as well as reduced resources for tackling serious and organised crime, sexual offences and hate crime. People on Merseyside were extremely concerned about the impact that that would have had on the safety of our communities.
	The relief with which the Chancellor’s announcement was greeted on Merseyside was qualified by the knowledge of the spending reductions that our police force was already being forced to make. Between 2010-11 and 2015-16, the force made savings of £77 million, resulting in an overall budget reduction of 20%. Over that period, the number of police officers fell by 20%, police staff by 24%, and PCSOs by 25%. PCSOs are the eyes and ears of community policing on whom we rely. On Merseyside, and particularly the Wirral, PCSOs now end their shifts at 10 pm, which is before the pubs have closed, as a result of the reduction in shift allowance in May 2013. There simply is not enough money to pay them to be on duty at one of the times when they are most needed.
	The relief felt on Merseyside at the news of the Chancellor’s U-turn was therefore tempered by what followed. Since November, it has become clear that the Chancellor’s pledge to safeguard police funding was not the full 180° U-turn that we hoped for, but only partial, and the devil is very much in the detail. The Chancellor’s pledge to protect the police depends on an increase in the precept to compensate for a reduction in Government grants. Merseyside’s general grant was reduced by £1.3 million.
	The Home Secretary has made it clear that she expects the grant reduction to be offset by increasing the precept to the maximum available, and the police and crime commissioner has consulted the general public and the police and crime panel on increasing the precept by 1.95%. That proposal has won strong support in both cases. However, for 2016-17, Merseyside police faces a budget deficit of £5.4 million. To address that deficit and balance the budget, the PCC is proposing to utilise £2.1 million of reserves, and request the force to make further savings of £3.3 million in 2016-17. Assuming that the PCC’s overall level of funding remains broadly at the 2016-17 level, it is anticipated that further savings of £22 million will be required by 2017-18 and 2020-21.
	Although the final settlement announced in the spending review will mean that the force will have to make smaller savings than expected, it still represents a challenge. Those savings will have to be made against a background of increasing demand on the Merseyside police. The increase in some kinds of crime—including serious offences—on Merseyside has been significantly higher than the national average, and I urge the Minister to look at the detail.
	The overall increase in crime on Merseyside between September 2014 and September 2015 was 6.4%—that is just in one year—which was in line with the national averages for England and Wales. However, when we look at other offences, we find that the picture is not so favourable. Vehicle theft offences on Merseyside increased by 8.9%, compared with 0.1% in England and Wales. Domestic burglary increased by 1.2% on Merseyside, but decreased by 5.1% in England and Wales. There was a 48.7% increase in offences involving violence against the person in Merseyside, compared with nearly half that—26.8%—in England and Wales. Those are worrying figures. Violent offences involving injury increased by 38.6% on Merseyside, compared with 16% in England and Wales, and the number of violent offences without injury leapt by 60.7%, compared with 37.5% for England and Wales.
	Those figures for Merseyside are a matter of concern and reflect the serious need for properly funded policing. Sexual offences increased by 34.5% in Merseyside. It is thought that that increase may reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward, as well as improvements in recording crime.. While that willingness must be welcomed, the resources must be available to pursue cases and deal with victims in a sensitive way. If that does not happen, victims will not continue to come forward in greater numbers. People on Merseyside must have redress in law when they are subjected to violence, and the state must act as their protector and defender. The first duty of the state is to protect the public, and the Chancellor must ensure that the police have the resources to do so.
	Wirral West is a lovely part of the world with some areas of real prosperity, but it also has areas of deprivation. In some areas of my constituency people are frightened to go to the shops in the middle of the day because of antisocial behaviour. That is wholly unacceptable.

Conor McGinn: My hon. Friend is making a strong case by articulating the impact that these cuts are having on communities. Despite being at opposite ends of the region, she and I are both covered by the Merseyside police force, and every day we see the impact of the cuts on the people she has spoken about. Does she agree that the people we ask to do this difficult job are the men and women who are police officers on Merseyside, and that they are also suffering as a result of these cuts? A Police Federation survey towards the end of last year showed that more than three-quarters of police officers did not feel valued in the service and were suffering from low morale, and that is a real cause for concern.

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is important that we value police officers and all police staff who do such a difficult job.
	All my constituents deserve to be able to go about their daily lives without fear or anxiety. All of them deserve a police service that is funded at a level that enables it to do its job safely and efficiently. I pay tribute to the work done by all Merseyside police staff, including PCSOs, police officers and so-called back-office staff. They have been rather maligned, I feel, by certain Government Members. Front-line personnel, often in perilous situations, rely on them. Without them, the force could not operate. I also pay tribute to the police and crime commissioner, who does such a good job.
	The Chancellor made his U-turn on extreme cuts the night before the spending review. That suggests an extraordinary lack of planning and calls into question the quality of decision making in the Treasury. The police force on Merseyside must be funded at a level that enables it to prevent crime wherever possible and pursue effectively those who commit it. The force has to be able to meet the rising demands on it from increased levels of crime and the expectations we have of it. That is fundamental if we are to live in a civilised, stable and safe society. I urge the Minister to look carefully at policing need on Merseyside and to fight for a fair police funding settlement.

Stephen Hammond: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood). I will use the short time available to address some of the issues that affect London in particular, but let me start by making it very clear that I have not heard any Government Member maligning anybody in the police force—far from it. I put on record my tribute to the Metropolitan police, particularly in my borough where they have had to deal with some interesting issues over the past month. I will refer to those later on.
	Last September, a number of London Members had dinner with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who went through the modelling to which my right hon. Friend the Police Minister referred earlier. So that we understood the potential of the modelling, I think that it was dinner without wine, but it was dinner none the less. After that, my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) led delegations to meet the Home Secretary. From a London point of view, I am delighted that the Minister, the Chancellor and the Home Secretary listened. It will make a huge difference. The £900 million in cash terms over the next four years, with the reforms the Minister talked about, will allow for the policing of our national city, including our local constituencies.
	The key point is that there have been reforms, a number of which have rendered the police force more effective. I made an intervention on the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who was rightly talking about the effectiveness of neighbourhood policing. One problem with the previous model, however, was that people got taken off neighbourhood policing, particularly in London. There have been some real issues with that at various times. I have no doubt that it was a great innovation and he was right to say it. It works and it has worked. Even though there is a reduced number, having dedicated people there the whole time has a similar effect. We saw that recently in my constituency, with the help the police received in relation to information brought forward to solve a very unfortunate murder.
	The money for London, of course, is not just there for the local; it has to be there for the national. I thank the Home Secretary and the Chancellor for listening to the issues relating to the National Crime Agency. The investment has the potential to transform it into a world-leading law enforcement agency. If we look at any number of the debates we have had in the Chamber in the past two years about cybercrime and the impact it has on our national city, we see that on one level it affects us all. The risk that criminals will be able to break into the internet of things and create problems for people on a personal level is high. London is the financial centre of Europe; nay, it is the global financial centre of the world. Alertness to cybercrime, and giving the police the resources to be able to fight cybercrime, is therefore absolutely key. Investment in the NCA will have a big impact not only in London, and on the reputation of London, but nationally.
	The same applies to counter-terrorism. The money that has been invested will have a huge impact both locally and nationally. The Police Minister will be aware that there were a number of incredibly callous bomb hoaxes at four of my local schools two weeks ago. The money secured for the NCA and counter-terrorism can not only be invested in the capability to ensure there are extra police on the streets but to deal with and to build up the intelligence on callous bomb hoaxers and defeat them. The local commander kindly shared with me a lot of information that I would not want to bring out today on the work it has done, but that work can only happen if we put the money into some of those agencies as well. The police grant will protect those agencies and protect people on the streets day after day, minute after minute. All that is absolutely crucial in the great city of London.
	Many cities in this country and around the world face the threat of terrorism. London, however, faces a unique and very severe threat from terrorism, so there are additional pressures on London police. It is therefore particularly welcome that the Met and the City of London police will, through the Greater London Authority, receive national and international city funding worth £174 million.
	We in London are pleased that the Minister has listened. The money was necessary and it was right that the adjustment was made. It is right that we are protecting the police. What we do in London has an impact not only across London constituencies, but nationally and internationally. Like the former shadow Police Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I will be casting my vote on the basis of what I think the police need. I recognise and pay tribute to what the Government have done. I hope my colleagues and others will join us in realising what a good settlement this is for the police and support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

Kelvin Hopkins: I would like to speak briefly about Bedfordshire, which has been very seriously underfunded for a prolonged period. It still has serious problems. I was very pleased to visit the Police Minister with the other five Members of Parliament for Bedfordshire—Conservative and Labour—a little time ago. He will have seen the paper prepared by the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable illustrating the desperate state of funding for policing in Bedfordshire. I made the point, in Business questions last week, suggesting that the funding formula was fundamentally flawed—broken was the term I used. I hope the funding formula will be amended rapidly, so that it can provide fair funding for Bedfordshire and other authorities across the country.
	We have a particular problem with knife crime that is comparable with Merseyside, Greater Manchester and other areas, yet we are substantially less well funded. We also have a problem with gun crime that is comparable with large urban areas. Again, we cannot cope because we have serious underfunding. Our police force does a wonderful job with the resources it has, but those resources are simply not good enough. Rural Wales has, per head of population, resources and police numbers that are a multiple of those available in Bedfordshire, yet it has very little crime. There is something fundamentally wrong with a formula that can give such relatively generous police funding to rural areas with very little crime, when Bedfordshire has some fairly serious problems with crime, which we do our best to deal with but really are struggling with.
	We have an excellent chief constable and an excellent police and crime commissioner in Jon Boutcher and Olly Martins. They are doing their best and have provided me with detailed arguments and statistics, which the Police Minister will have. They make the point over and again that we need a fairer funding formula to bring Bedfordshire into line with other areas.
	Our area needs extra resources for policing. As I mentioned, we have crime, but we also have political extremism on both sides of the divide, and that requires extra policing too. The police do the best job they can, with the resources available, but we do not have enough resource to do the necessary job. I urge the Policing Minister to look seriously at the funding formula. It should not just be an extra bit of cash to help out in the short term. We need to consider fundamentally how it can be revised, so that it treats Bedfordshire and every other area more equitably. Overall, we still need more funding for the police in general, but the lower funding we have across the country ought to be allocated fairly, and Bedfordshire should get its fair amount.
	I will leave it there. I apologise to hon. Members and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I have to go to the European Scrutiny Committee, where we are interviewing the Foreign Secretary. It is pressing business, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I leave fairly quickly after my speech.

Andrew Stephenson: Despite some of the scaremongering in the press, the police grant report is good news for police forces across the country and for the force that covers my constituency. I strongly welcome the significant increase in financial resources available across England and Wales and the fact that no police and crime commissioner will face a reduction in cash funding in the next financial year. Credit for that must go to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister, whom I thank for investing in protecting my constituents from crime and disorder.
	The police have had to bear a heavy burden, as the country has had to deal with the mess left behind by the Labour party. The report confirms that we are through the worst and that under a responsible Government we can once again afford to offer our police the support they need and deserve. The fact is that crime has fallen by more than a quarter under this Government. Crime has fallen across Lancashire, including in Pendle.

Barbara Keeley: I counsel the hon. Gentleman against talking about crime falling across the country. He is saying things that are not true for Greater Manchester, which has seen a 14% increase in recorded crime and a 36% increase in violent crime, but which is facing an £8.5 million cut. Will he please not talk about crime falling across the country, as he is not referring to Greater Manchester?

Andrew Stephenson: The hon. Lady is talking about reported crime. According to the British crime survey, crime has fallen across the country, and that survey has always been accepted on a cross-party basis as a more accurate reflection of crime rates across the country.

Barbara Keeley: rose—

Andrew Stephenson: I want to talk about rates of crime that have increased, so if the hon. Lady will allow me, I will make some progress.

Jack Dromey: My intervention will be quick, because I am keen that everyone has the chance to speak, but it is important to put the record right. In July, cybercrime and online fraud will be included in the crime survey of England and Wales. The early estimate is that it will add 6 million crimes and result in crime possibly doubling. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on what he has just said and recognise that at last the truth will be told on crime? It is not falling; it is changing.

Andrew Stephenson: If the shadow Minister will hold his horses, I will talk about cybercrime and other types of crime not currently reflected in the crime figures and why the police grant is a sensible investment in our ability to deal with new forms of crime.
	Drug gangs are a real problem in Pendle, but Operation Regenerate has seen significant resources and a significant number of officers dedicated to tackling organised crime there. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 will help further by stopping people profiting from selling dangerous drugs to our young people. So-called legal highs have caused serious harm to young people across my area, and I am proud to have served on the Bill Committee, alongside other right. hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber today.
	Although most types of crime recorded in the statistics have fallen, we have seen upwards trends in certain types of crime. Rates of violence and sexual offences have increased in recent years. Some of that is down to historical under-reporting, but there are other factors. As a country, we still face an epidemic of domestic violence—it is mostly against women, but men are affected too. Just last week, a woman was the victim of a very serious sexual assault on the streets of Colne, the town in which I live. This is a rare thing to happen in the town, and I am sure the whole House will join me in hoping for the swift arrest of those guilty of this appalling attack and in expressing our every sympathy for the victim. I hope the Minister will set out how the Home Office will support police forces such as Lancashire to work with other agencies to ensure that domestic violence and sexual offences are reported and victims protected.
	Lancashire police are at the forefront of fighting the rise of modern slavery. One of the first—if not the first ever—modern slavery orders was given to a man in my constituency, using new powers given to the police by the coalition Government’s Modern Slavery Act 2015. This shows that we face new types of crime. The Government must continue to help the police to reform so that they can tackle new forms of crime and protect vulnerable people at risk of exploitation.
	The commitment to transforming funding towards developing specialist capabilities to tackle cybercrime will be hugely important, if we are to protect individuals and businesses from the growing threat of online fraud, which all the statistics indicate is of real concern. A new cyber-skills institute will soon open in Nelson, in my constituency, which I hope Ministers will help to support so that we can train the next generation of cyber experts that our police forces desperately need.
	There is also the challenge of identifying how the police can best help to integrate communities in east Lancashire and across the country, as we join together to fight extremism and discrimination against certain groups based on their ethnicity or religion. I recently met Andy Pratt, who served Lancashire for 28 years as a police officer. During his career, he set up the first ever community cohesion team in the county, and since his retirement, he has worked tirelessly on interfaith work, trying to build bridges, particularly between our Muslim and Christian communities. I am delighted that he has been selected as the Conservative party’s candidate—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I said I did not want us campaigning for people standing for election. The debate is about police funding, not candidates, no matter how good or bad they are; that is not the idea of the debate.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank you for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: It was not guidance.

Andrew Stephenson: In conclusion, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for how he has worked with me and other Lancashire MPs on a cross-party basis, particularly over the proposed changes to the police funding formula, which would have disadvantaged Lancashire police. I welcome the generous settlement before the House. We now have to work with our local police forces to continue to reform policing across the UK and to drive down all types of crime.

James Berry: I rise to make four brief points. First, on the level of funding, before the autumn statement, the Home Office, like many other Departments, was asked to model reductions in spending, and the police were preparing for cuts of 20% to 25%. Labour said that the police could withstand cuts of 10%, but the Chancellor protected police funding, and I welcome that protection, as do many police leaders. The most impressive responses from the policing community came from people such as Chief Constable Sara Thornton, who recognised the need not only for sufficient funding, but for the police to reform and to adapt to the changing demands on their services.
	My second point is about flexibility. It is important that the police are flexible to meet the demands on their services. A National Audit Office study reveals that the police do not have a sufficient understanding of those demands, so it is important that they both understand and adapt to meet them.

Kevan Jones: rose—

James Berry: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was wronged earlier, because Durham is, in fact, the most efficient police force in the country. I think he wanted to make that point earlier.

Kevan Jones: I wanted to put the record straight for the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher). As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) rightly says, Durham is the only constabulary in the country that has received an “outstanding” rating for efficiency five times from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs inspectors. In spite of that, however, it is going to have to save about £3 million over the next year. The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) has said that the cash settlement has not been reduced, but other demands mean that the number of officers in County Durham will have to be reduced, even though it has already been cut by some 400 over the past 10 years.

James Berry: I am sure the Minister will deal with that in his response. I do not recognise those statistics, but I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s chief constable for running such a fantastically efficient force.

Jack Dromey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Berry: No.
	The point about flexibility is clearly lost on the Labour party. I recently attended a Westminster Hall debate in which a London Labour MP insisted on a top-down, inflexible model of ward policing in London, without recognising the fact that some wards needed more policing than others, as is the case in Kingston. That is why I endorse the decision taken by the Home Secretary and the Chancellor to be flexible themselves, including increasing funding both for counter-terrorism policing and firearms officers, which is what the police asked for, at a time when we face an unprecedented terrorism threat, and for a new drive to co-ordinate the fight against fraud, which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, has increased, particularly on the internet.
	Thirdly, police funding has to go hand in hand with reform. Thanks to the coalition Government—particularly their Conservative policies—there has been an increase in the democratic control of policing through police and crime commissioners. Important reforms have also been made to the police misconduct regime, including, most recently, opening up misconduct hearings to the public, to increase transparency and public confidence. The College of Policing has been created to set standards and guidance for police. I declare that I am an associate of that college and occasionally give lectures there.
	The Home Secretary’s police reform agenda continues, including funding to encourage collaboration between forces, which is not a top-down model like that pursued under the last Government, but a bottom-up model. There are excellent examples of collaboration, such as that between West Mercia and Warwickshire police. There is also funding to encourage blue light collaboration, which not only saves money, but increases the efficiency and effectiveness of our blue light services.
	My fourth and final point is about policing in London and in Kingston, which has the second lowest crime rate in London. We have an excellent borough commander in Glenn Tunstall, who leads a fantastic local police force, which is part of the fabric of the local community and does us in Kingston proud. Tomorrow I will host a public meeting with officers in Surbiton, to talk about the excellent work that they, led by Sergeant Trudy Hutchinson, do to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. I pay tribute to them.
	In Kingston town centre, the Conservative council has made good on our campaign to increase the number of police officers by using the Police Act 1996 to buy extra police officers and making use of the Mayor of London’s “buy one, get one free” offer. That has had a fantastic impact on the rate of arrests and on safety in the town centre.
	My constituents do not spend all their time in Kingston with its low crime rate; many of them also come into central London, where, of course, crime rates are higher, as is the threat of terrorism. That is why I got together with other London MPs, including my constituency neighbour—my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) to talk to the Policing Minister, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor, in order to ensure that police funding in London was protected. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has claimed that it was Labour that forced a change in police funding, but I am afraid that that is simply not correct. Clear calls were made by Conservative Members, and the Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister listened to them and protected our budget. As a result, the number of police community support officers in London is not going to be cut, and the number of authorised firearms officers will be increased considerably. There will also be increased funding for counter-terrorism, and our capital city grant has been protected.
	To return to the issue of flexibility, certain areas of crime have increased, despite the overall downward trend in the UK and in London, but I am sure that the Metropolitan police and the police in Kingston and the rest of the country will be flexible to meet the increased demand on their services and that they will meet those challenges.
	I welcome the report. I am delighted that funding has been protected in London and that the Government are putting the protection of people at home and abroad first. I thank the Minister for what he has done for policing in London.

Victoria Atkins: It is fitting that we are having this debate in the same week that the Prime Minister made a speech on his groundbreaking reforms in our prison system. One startling fact in his speech was that 70% of prisoners have at least seven previous convictions. If we can improve recidivism rates, it will inevitably have an impact on the resources available to police officers. These reforms to the prison system and to the police funding formula are compassionate and they are to be welcomed because they will also help to prevent crime.
	My right hon. Friend the Policing Minister is to be congratulated on acting on the promise to review the police funding formula—something promised by others over the years but never actually done; it has now been done by the Minister and the Home Secretary. He is also to be congratulated on protecting the policing budget in the autumn statement and on making real blue-light reform possible, enabling the police, the ambulance and the fire services to work together. I shall deal quickly with each in turn.
	On the police funding formula, Lincolnshire is the police constabulary in my constituency, which is a very rural part of the world that has been particularly badly affected by the old police funding formula, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The Lincolnshire chief constable—and, indeed, some of his colleagues and other chief constables—has been very brave in challenging the funding formula. Not every chief constable has made the same progress as him on efficiency savings. He has written an excellent book, “The Structure of Police Finance—Informing the Debate”, which helped me when I needed to put various questions to chief constables in my work on the Home Affairs Select Committee. The Select Committee has found that some forces have extraordinarily generous reserves of savings. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Committee Chairman, invited chief constables and police and crime commissioners to give evidence and we heard from some that they had reserves of up to £60 million. Since then, I have learned that the West Midlands force has a reserve of £153 million. Rather than have that money sitting in a bank account, we should surely spend it wisely to protect the public.

Jack Dromey: The hon. Lady mentions the money of the West Midlands police service, but it is overwhelmingly earmarked for the rationalisation of buildings in order to save money in the medium and longer term and for the recruitment of new police officers. I know Neil Rhodes well, and he is a fine chief constable. He was right to call for a review of the police funding formula, so does the hon. Lady share his dismay and my dismay that, as a consequence of the omnishambles within the Home Office before Christmas, we are stuck with the existing arrangements?

Victoria Atkins: It is certainly true that the chief constable was excited at the prospect of the new funding formula and how it might help his constabulary. It is as it is, but I received a letter from the chief constable last month saying that the constabulary has made further bold bids for transformational funding, which it is excited about in connection with blue-light funding. I shall come on to that later.
	As we have heard, the overall police budget is going to be protected—up to £900 million by 2019-20—and there is going to be a real-terms increase to £670 million for policing and counter-terrorism next year. There is also to be an increase in transformation funding to help with issues such as cybercrime.
	I see in their places three members of the Joint Committee that has scrutinised the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, which is going to report tomorrow. During our work on that Committee we have heard about the changing nature of the threats facing our country and local policing, whether it be in respect of counter-terrorism or the challenges faced by police officers investigating missing persons. That, however, is for another debate and another time.
	My final point is about making blue-light collaboration possible. In a village in my constituency, Woodhall Spa, fire officers are trained to step in as ambulance workers, because they will be on the scene before the ambulances arrive. That is a great improvement, and the more we see of it the better. When I had the pleasure of visiting police stations in both Louth and Horncastle before Christmas to thank the officers for their work, I was interested to see that Louth police station was next door to the fire station. There must be room for the services to work together in helping to protect the public.
	There have been suggestions from the Opposition that Members do not appreciate the work of police officers. That is simply wrong. I had the pleasure and privilege of working with excellent police and law enforcement officers in my previous career, and I am delighted that Lincolnshire constabulary will be hosting its annual awards in March to celebrate the bravery and commitment of officers in our county. I have been invited to the ceremony. Sadly, I shall probably not be able to go because I shall be here, but I wish them well. I am sure that the whole House wishes each and every police officer in our country well for the future, and is grateful for the work that they have done already.

Eleanor Laing: If the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) stands up, he will be called.

Alex Chalk: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very kind.
	As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the police protect us, and the Government have indeed protected the police. I believe that the settlement strikes the right balance between ensuring that police forces are properly funded and can plan for the future, and maintaining the impetus and the tempo of reforms.
	When I was listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), it struck me that it would be helpful to put the settlement in context. Back in 2010, this country was truly staring into the abyss. Youth unemployment had doubled, and Britain was the basket case of Europe. [Interruption.] I hear the scoffing of Opposition Members, but the important point is this: the impact on public services would have been felt if the Government had not introduced some degree of order. Let us remember what the position was like back then. People were talking not just about trimming the police force, but about the wholesale meltdown of some of our key public services, and that is precisely what has not happened.
	On 25 November the Chancellor announced that police spending would be protected in real terms over the spending review period, when the precept was taken into account. No police and crime commissioner will face a reduction in cash funding next year, and funding will have increased by up to £900 million in cash terms by 2019-20. As has already been pointed out, counter-terrorism funding will increase in real terms to £670 million in 2016-17. We have moved from a time when the country and policing faced disaster to a time when we have a strong funding settlement that will give proper funding to our most important services.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Chalk: Very briefly.

Kevan Jones: I think that the hon. Gentleman has to sit down when I stand up.

Alex Chalk: Sorry.

Kevan Jones: I know that the present Government find it difficult to distinguish between revenue and capital, among other concepts, but the hon. Gentleman has said that no one will lose cash. Durham, for instance, has an “outstanding” force—the only one in the country—but that force must take £3 million out of its budget this year because of wage increases and other pressures. “Flat cash” does not constitute an increase.

Alex Chalk: As I have said, it is important to put the settlement in context. Back in 2010—[Interruption.] May I deal with the point? In 2010, the country was bringing in about £600 million in tax revenue and spending £750 million. If that had not been addressed, the country and policing would be facing meltdown, but policing is now on a sound footing to protect the people of our country.
	Speeches are sometimes as interesting for what is not said as for what is said. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington did not mention, even as one of his own apocalyptic scenarios, the kind of cut that he would himself have countenanced. At the Labour party conference in Brighton, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) declared that savings of up to 10% could be found. He said that that would be doable. That is not what is happening under this Government. Funding is now on a sustainable footing and capability is being enhanced.

Jack Dromey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Chalk: I will not take any more interventions.
	Let us look at how that capability is being enhanced. Specialist capabilities in cybercrime are being improved, as is firearms capability. Modernisation and reform are also taking place because, as Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has set out, there are further efficiencies to be made. Whether in respect of decent funding or improving our capability, this settlement will enable us, even in difficult times, to protect our police, build capacity, drive reform and deliver for the people of this country.
	Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 310, Noes 212.
	Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England and Wales:

Ayes 305, Noes 208.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2016–17 (HC 753), which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: I have now to announce the result of the deferred Division on the Question relating to the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016. The Ayes were 313 and the Noes were 67, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Local Government Finance (England)

[Relevant Documents: Oral evidence taken before the Communities and Local Government Committee on 13 January 2016, on the Financial Settlement 2015, HC 530, and written evidence to the Committee on Adult social care, reported to the House on 8 February 2016.]

Eleanor Laing: We come now to the three motions on local government finance in England, which will be debated together. I remind the House that these motions will be subject to double majority voting. If Divisions are called on these motions, all Members of the House are able to vote in the Divisions. The motions will be agreed only if, of those voting, a majority of all Members and a majority of Members representing constituencies in England vote in support of the motions. At the end, the Tellers will report the results, first, for all Members and, secondly, for those representing constituencies in England.

Greg Clark: I beg to move,
	That the Report on Local Government Finance (England) 2016–17 (HC 789), which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: With this we shall discuss the following motions:
	That the Report on the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) 2016–17 (HC 790), which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.
	That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) 2016–17 (HC 791), which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.

Greg Clark: I am pleased to open the debate on this year’s report on local government finance in England. I would like to start by thanking all colleagues in the House, and council leaders and officials, who contributed to the consultation after I made a provisional statement shortly before Christmas. Nearly 280 groups or individuals contributed to the consultation. All responses have been carefully considered, and sensible suggestions have been incorporated into the final settlement that is before the House today.
	I have always been frank with local councils that they will need to continue to make savings. Local government accounts for nearly one quarter of public spending, so it is inevitable and appropriate that councils should play their part in helping to reduce the national deficit. Council tax payers are also national tax payers; they are the same people—our constituents—and everyone suffers if we run a permanent, untamed deficit.
	Councils have accepted their part in this responsibility. During the last Parliament, all parts of local government delivered the savings that have helped reduce the deficit by half. At the same time, satisfaction with the services provided by local councils has been maintained—a remarkable reflection on the professionalism and the resourcefulness of local government.

Gareth Thomas: Does the Secretary of State understand the frustration of my constituents at the settlement for Harrow Council? We have one of the lowest per capita settlements in London. The council is having to make £80 million of cuts over four years, leading among other things to the closure of the popular Bridge mental health day centre.

Greg Clark: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that London Councils welcomed many of the changes we have made in this settlement, including the provision of a four-year settlement. One of the concerns councils have had for many years is that, with annual funding, they were not able to plan ahead and reap some of the economies.

Paul Maynard: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Greg Clark: The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) will also know that, in terms of the response to the provisional settlement, I have made extra resources available to Harrow, which I think has gone down well in his borough.

Paul Maynard: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Greg Clark: I will give way to my vigorous hon. Friend.

Paul Maynard: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for finding extra money for Lancashire, but for listening to me and not taking that money out of Blackpool’s budget. Blackpool is another urban area facing high levels of need. He has performed a balancing trick very adroitly.

Greg Clark: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Blackpool has important pressures that need to be met, and he has made representations, as indeed have his local authorities. It is true that some advised that some transitional relief should come at the expense of places such as Blackpool. However, I have been able to find a way for us to provide some relief for the years in which the reductions in grant are sharpest, without making the situation worse for places such as Blackpool, which have benefited from the settlement.

Bob Neill: This is actually a very progressive and good settlement for the long-term future of local government, because it is genuinely devolutionist. In that context, does my right hon. Friend recognise and accept that it is important not only that he has given transitional relief, which helps outer London boroughs such as Bromley, but that London boroughs and other authorities help themselves by reducing their unit costs in the same way as, for example, Bromley, which has the lowest unit costs in outer London?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I had the pleasure of spending some time with the cabinet of Bromley Council, which is one of the most efficient in London and shows the way for all London boroughs to deliver services that are very much valued by their residents, very cost-effectively.

Gordon Marsden: On 26 January, the leader of Blackpool Council wrote to the Secretary of State to remind him that we face cuts for 2016-17 of 4.9% compared with an England average of 2.8%. Despite that—and despite the Secretary of State’s welcome comments yesterday about looking at the way in which demographics in certain areas, particularly those with large numbers of older people, might be dealt with—under this formula Blackpool gets absolutely no transitional relief at all. Is there any logic or justice in that?

Greg Clark: Of course there is, because the transitional relief is for the authorities that had a sharper reduction in the grant than others. Blackpool benefited to the tune of £3 million from the improvement of the grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) was wise enough to recognise that, and to recognise the difference it will make to the people of Blackpool, and the hon. Gentleman should do likewise.

Mark Spencer: One of the most progressive things that the Secretary of State has done is to give local councils a four-year settlement, so that they can now view what their settlements will be into the future and not live from day to day not knowing what their budget settlement would be in the next year.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. This is one of the key requests that local government has made of central Government for many years, and it has constantly fallen on deaf ears. Councils right across the country, with all different kinds of party political control, have welcomed the fact that they will have the chance to look ahead and plan for the future.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Greg Clark: Let me make a bit of progress, and then I will of course give way to more colleagues.
	As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out, over the course of this Parliament the required savings that, as I made clear, councils will need to continue to make will be less than those required in the previous Parliament. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reports that the required savings of
	“around 7% in real terms over the next four years...is a substantially slower pace of cuts than councils had to deliver between 2009-10 and 2015-16, when councils’ spending power was cut on average by 25% in real terms.”

John Howell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that within this process councils are still required to do things in a fundamentally different way, such as setting up trading joint ventures, as one county council told me it had done on Monday, or looking at Uber-type services for buses?

Greg Clark: Yes, councils should take the opportunities to be innovative. My hon. Friend and I served on the Committee on the Bill that became the Localism Act 2011, which introduced a general power of competence for local councils precisely so that they could take decisions in the interests of their residents and contribute effectively.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Greg Clark: I will give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and then to—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before the Secretary of State gives way—he has been perfectly polite and courteous in giving way a great many times—let me point out that this is a short debate. Twenty-four people have indicated to me that they would like to make speeches, and they intend to sit here all afternoon awaiting their turn to do so. Many people are making interventions, which the Secretary of State is dealing with most courteously. They are taking part in the debate, and they must be aware that they are taking up the time of other people who will be waiting to speak later on. If you make an intervention in this debate, you must remain for most of the debate and certainly be here for the wind-ups.

Greg Clark: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given those numbers, I will be brief in taking interventions, but I will take the point from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside.

Louise Ellman: I thank the Secretary of State. Does he recognise the problems of Liverpool, which faces a 9% cut in funding next year, coming on top of a 58% cut since 2010?

Greg Clark: I have been very clear that all councils need to continue to make savings. As I think the hon. Lady will know, the way in which we have conducted the settlements has been fair across the country, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out. In fact, a council that she knows very well that is close to her area, Sefton Council, said in its response to the consultation:
	“The announcement that core spending power will be reduced by only 0.5% between 2015/16 and 2019/20 in cash terms and 6.7% in real terms, is better than we had expected last summer.”
	That is from her neighbouring council.

Neil Parish: rose—

Greg Clark: I will give way to my hon. Friend and then make some progress.

Neil Parish: I welcome a review of the fair share for rural areas. The rural fair share campaign, which has been running for many years, is about making sure that funds keep coming across to help us deal with not only our elderly populations, but the things such as small schools and rubbish collections that cost so much more to provide in rural areas. We need a fair deal. I look forward to the Secretary of State’s keeping up his good work, but we want to see delivery.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we could add to those services school transport, which is particularly costly in rural areas. That is why the underlying formula should catch up with what has happened in many communities. That is overdue.
	I will highlight four features of this year’s settlement. First, for decades councils have had to set annual budgets without knowing what resources they can expect 12 months hence. That prevents them from planning long term, and it promotes inefficiency. Because plans and contracts have to be short term, councils miss out on the economies that would be possible if they could take a longer view. For the first time in the history of local government, the settlement gives indicative figures for the next four years to any council that shows that it can translate such certainty into efficiency savings.

Andrew Turner: There is a deep hole in the arrangements for the island. Can the Secretary of State work with locals, of all parties and of none, to find solutions to the problems that we face?

Greg Clark: Indeed, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he does as MP for the Isle of Wight in bringing together all its leaders and councillors, regardless of party political affiliation, to promote its best interests. I look forward to visiting the island in his company to meet the councillors and officers.

Paul Farrelly: My county of Staffordshire makes the transitional grant list at No. 18, with just £5.6 million. Next door to me, deprived Stoke-on-Trent gets nothing, against £24.1 million for Surrey. Why, in this battle of the S’s, does the south, as ever, win out?

Greg Clark: It is very straightforward. The amount of transitional relief is in proportion to the reduction in revenue support grant, and so Staffordshire had less than Surrey. That is purely mathematical. I should have thought that the addition of nearly £3 million to the council’s budget would have been welcomed by council tax payers. In fact, I know that it has been.

Simon Hoare: As my right hon. Friend knows, I welcome the statement wholeheartedly. May I take him back to what he has said about certainty? That is welcome, from a district and county perspective. Will he give further consideration over the coming weeks to providing certainty to town councils that they will be exempt from having their precept capped? They are trying to work in greater concert with district councils, and that parallel certainty will help them to forge such deals.

Greg Clark: There is a lively debate as to whether the bigger town and parish councils should be part of the capping regime. I have resisted drawing them into that, but I look to parish and town councils to exercise economy, recognising that the services that they provide are much valued but that they are paid for by council tax payers. If those councils continue to operate in an economical way, they may not give rise to the question on which my hon. Friend seeks certainty.

Liam Byrne: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Greg Clark: I am going to make some progress, as you have urged me to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I have time towards the end, I will take an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman.
	The second feature of the settlement is that we have prioritised spending on adult social care—the care that we provide to our elderly and vulnerable citizens. [Interruption.] Labour Members groan and complain, but they should recognise that in response to the requests of local government, the Government have done something that the previous Government did not and established funding arrangements to ensure that we can protect our elderly and vulnerable citizens.
	In September, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the Local Government Association made a submission to the spending review—“Adult social care, health and wellbeing: A Shared Commitment. 2015 Spending Review Submission”—in which the two organisations jointly requested that an extra £2.9 billion be made available by 2020. With the introduction of the 2% social care precept and £1.5 billion made available to councils through an improved better care fund, up to £3.5 billion of extra funding will be available for adult social care by 2019-20.

Helen Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Barbara Keeley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Greg Clark: I will not give way.
	More elderly people living in our communities is a good thing—they are our parents and grandparents, and it is an advance that they are living longer than anyone thought possible—but we need to pay for their care needs. It is no reflection on the efficiency of a council if care costs increase because the number of older people is increasing in their communities.

Helen Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Barbara Keeley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Greg Clark: I will not give way.
	A 2% precept is the equivalent of an annual £23 increase in the average bill for a band D property. That money can be used only for social care, and council tax bills are required to be transparent about the purpose for which the money is raised.
	By the end of this Parliament, local government will retain all the business rates it raises. It is a huge transformation from a world in which, just three years ago, every penny that councils collected from local businesses had to be handed over straight to the Treasury. That meant that councils were dependent on the central Government grant. At the start of the last Parliament, nearly 80% of council expenditure was in the form of a grant from central Government. By 2020, all local government spending will be raised by local government. Councils and local people will reap the benefits of reviving economic growth, just as central Government and the country will benefit from the rising prosperity that the Government’s policies are fostering. With services financed locally, councils are even more accountable to their electorates, rather than to Ministers in Whitehall. Even as a Minister in Whitehall, I say that this is how it should be.

Helen Jones: I am sorry, but the Secretary of State is being disingenuous. He knows that the whole local government finance system, set up under the previous Government’s Local Finance Act 2012, takes no account of need. His social care precept will raise the most money in areas that have the highest council tax base, not in areas where there is greatest need, which tend to have the lowest council tax base.

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady makes two interesting points. On the first point, about the formula, I agree with her. It is too long since the underlying assessment of needs was updated—it is more than 10 years—and that is why I have proposed to go back to the drawing board and look at the needs and the resources available to each county. She is quite right on that point. On the second point, of course she is right: I recognise that the effect of a 2% precept is different in different parts of the country. The better care fund has been allocated differently precisely to take account of that. I would therefore have thought she welcomed that.

Mark Spencer: Does the Secretary of State recognise that councils that are progressive in supporting business and providing housing for their constituents will actually get a more generous income in future than those that do not support businesses coming into their area?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is of course better for councils to face in the direction of bringing successful businesses into their area and benefiting from that, rather than passing all such benefits up to the Exchequer.
	A few moments ago, I mentioned the increasing elderly population, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), we have had a decade of significant demographic change without the needs-based formula—it determines how much a well-run council requires to deliver its services efficiently—being revised to reflect that change.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Barbara Keeley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady should be patient. I have given way to their hon. Friend, and I am going to make some progress.
	That point was made repeatedly during the consultation by councils from all across the country and under the leadership of all political parties. That is why I will conduct a fundamental review of the needs-based formula to govern the change to 100% business rates retention, which I have described. It is not only the changing needs of different areas that need to be recognised, but the differing costs of providing services to residents depending on the area a council serves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was saying, the rural services delivery grant, which recognises the extra costs encountered by rural authorities in delivering services, is bringing £15.5 million into such councils this year. This settlement increases the grant more than fivefold to £80.5 million, which will ensure that there is no deterioration in Government funding for rural areas, when compared with urban areas, for the year of this statutory settlement.

Liam Byrne: The Secretary of State is being characteristically generous. However elegant the strategy, he must surely take a moment to look at the results. What Buckinghamshire gets from the Government will have been boosted by 11.4% by 2016-17, while Birmingham has been battered and is losing 10%. I welcome the shift to a needs-based formula, but surely he must see that massive discrepancies are emerging, when great cities such as Birmingham are being battered to bits.

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman is an intelligent man, so he should go away and study the changes in the formula. When I met the former leader of his city, Sir Albert Bore, he recognised, as has the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that it is fair to proceed with an approach that looks at all the resources that are available to local councils. On that basis, his city of Birmingham, for which I have enormous ambition and regard, has benefited significantly. Of course, the transitional grant is for places that did not benefit from the changes in the formula.

Graham Stuart: My right hon. Friend maintains a soft and genuine manner, which I admire, but I am made furious by the interventions by Labour Members, because when in power they skewed the whole system. They could not find a way to put the money into Labour areas without coming up with a falsehood. They put density into the formula at four times the weighting of sparsity, when there was no evidence whatsoever of any link between density and need. It was they who skewed the system, and it needs to be put right.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate and he makes his case very well. I think that all Members across the House would recognise that after 10 years it is appropriate to look again at the cost of providing services in different areas—rural as well as urban—and at the changes in demographic pressures in that time. That sensible approach has been welcomed widely.

Sarah Wollaston: Is it not true that the long-standing unfairness has been the penalty against rural areas? Areas such as Devon have a low-wage economy, but the highest council taxes. This settlement addresses that imbalance without penalising areas such as Torbay. I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend on a very sensible settlement.

Greg Clark: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Every local government finance settlement has to strike a balance between the very different needs of different areas of the country. Most people who have reflected on the settlement that I have proposed, including the Local Government Association and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, have recognised that I have been fair to places, such as those she mentions, that have higher costs—Torbay has benefited from the change in the formula—and that I have committed to making sure that the new system for 100% business rate retention is founded on an accepted analysis of the costs and pressures that different authorities face.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Greg Clark: I am going to make some progress, but I will give way to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee in a few moments.
	Another important provision of the settlement is the continuation of the new homes bonus. It had not been guaranteed that the existing scheme would continue through the spending review period. I believe that the bonus has been a valuable source of funding for councils and a spur to much-needed house building, so I am very happy that the scheme will continue, subject to the changes on which I am consulting.
	The settlement provides flexibility for councils with a record of keeping costs low by permitting a de minimis £5 a year council tax increase without requiring the cost of a referendum. We will consult on plans to permit well-run planning departments to increase their fees by, at most, the rate of inflation, as long as such income is used to decrease the existing cross-subsidy of the planning function by other council tax payers. Importantly, the settlement makes it clear that as revenue support grant declines, no council will have to make a contribution to other councils in either 2017-18 or 2018-19—something that was considered to be unfair in the provisional settlement by certain respondents.
	Let me say a few words about the reductions in revenue support grant over the spending review period. As I have said, we are moving from one world to another; from a world in which the Government grant accounted for nearly 80% of local government expenditure in 2010 to one in which, by 2020, only 5% of local government spending power will come from the revenue support grant. In the same period, with the implementation of 100% business rates retention, the proportion of council spending power from local sources—council tax and business rates—will grow.
	The reason for the change is not just financial. A council that is almost entirely dependent on central Government will, consciously or unconsciously, end up looking to central Government to be told what to do. Of course, since time immemorial, Governments have attached strings to the money they give out. My excellent predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), abolished 4,700 targets, measures and indicators to which every council in the country had to subjugate itself to obtain revenue to provide services for its residents.
	That is no way for the proud towns, cities, counties and districts of this country to be governed. Places, many with a history as long and distinctive as our country itself, should not be reduced to complying meekly with Whitehall’s presumptuous demands. That is why a shift to funding from the people and businesses that councils exist to represent and serve, rather than all eyes being fixed on London, is so vital.
	Our councils have been the strongest campaigners for this long overdue change, but in the consultation period that followed the statement on the provisional settlement, councils and colleagues made the compelling case that the transition to this new world needs to be sensibly managed and that the first two years of the settlement would pose particular challenges.

Barbara Keeley: rose—

Clive Betts: rose—

Rebecca Harris: rose—

Greg Clark: I will give way in a second.
	I agreed with those views, which is why I have ensured that the final settlement will include a transition fund worth £150 million a year to cover 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Rebecca Harris: My right hon. Friend spoke about Government attaching strings to their funding. It was a version of he who pays the piper calls the tune. Does he believe that we might be moving to a world that is much more democratically responsive not only to the local electorate, but to businesses? They have often felt neglected by their local council areas and they will now feel that they are rather more important and have a starring role.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. It was a ludicrous situation, whereby local councils levied business rates, collected them and sent them to the Treasury. Local businesses felt that they did not have the same direct connection as council tax payers with their local councils. The best run councils have always had a high regard for promoting business in their areas, and it is high time that they were rewarded and backed for that. The reforms do that.

Clive Betts: As the Secretary of State knows, I agree with the proposition that it is important that councils can raise more of their finance locally. It is not a question of whether, but how it should be done. A crucial element is the needs assessment review, which will set the basis for the new system of 100% business rates retention for the future. How does the Secretary of State intend to go about that? Will he fully involve the Local Government Association? Will he consider any independent element to the review to ensure that it is not seen as some sort of stitch-up by Government Members to look after their areas and ignore areas represented by Opposition Members?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman has known me long enough to realise that, when I approach something, I do it seriously and rigorously. I take representations from everyone who has a sensible view to contribute, and I will certainly do that from local governments of all types. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and members of his Select Committee will contribute, as well as hon. Members of all parties who have a great deal of experience and knowledge of their constituents’ needs.
	Under the proposed settlement, no council will receive less than was stated in the provisional settlement figures. However, the transition fund will ease the change from a system based on central Government grant to one in which local sources determine a council’s revenue. The fund will be applied in direct proportion to the difference in the revenue support grant that would have been experienced. It is as straightforward as that, whatever the Labour party’s conspiracy theories suggest. Indeed, some Labour-led authorities, including Lancashire, made the proposal. The transition fund will ease the pace of reductions in the first two years of the spending review period, after which income from other sources will grow.
	The local government financial settlement is always important. It is the statutory act that allows councils to set their legal budget for the year ahead—the budget to deliver the services that we and our constituents rely on. This year the settlement contains some particularly important changes: indicative budgets for the entire spending review period to make longer term planning a reality; a big increase in funding for adult social care, which is one of our councils’ most important responsibilities; action to help rural areas and a commitment to all councils that the move to 100% business rate retention will be accompanied by a fundamental review of the needs-based formula; and transition funding to smooth the long-overdue journey from our over-centralised state to a future where all money that is spent locally is generated locally.
	Multi-year budgets have been delivered, social care prioritised, rural needs acknowledged, a fair funding review launched, and the devolution of funding advanced, and I commend the motion to the House.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the Opposition Front-Bench speaker, it will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak and we have a limited amount of time. I therefore impose a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches, although not for Mr Steve Reed.

Steve Reed: I will do my best to keep my remarks brief.
	It is always a pleasure to listen to the Secretary of State’s engaging manner, but it is not so pleasant listening to what he has to say. He repeated his claims to have protected funding for councils over the next four years, but there can be no one left who believes that anymore—judging from what we have heard over recent weeks, not even his own MPs believe it. That is no wonder, because the settlement funding assessment takes away £1 in every £3 given to councils for funding core services, and that is on top of cuts in excess of 40%—indeed, in many councils, in excess of 50%—that have already been imposed.

Barbara Keeley: I tried to intervene on the Secretary of State and he would not take my intervention, but I cannot leave what he said about social care because it is just wrong. There is no injection of cash into social care; there is only a maximum of £400 million this year. That funding is uncertain, risky and back-loaded, and the LGA has asked him if he will inject £700 million over the next two years because it is so concerned. There was not even funding for its own policy of national living wage increases, so let us not hear such things about social care.

Steve Reed: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will pick up on those points later in my contribution. Returning to the settlement funding assessment, because increases elsewhere do not plug the gap that those cuts create, it will result in cuts to front-line services, including cuts to youth services, fixing potholes, cleaning the streets, emptying the bins, looking after parks, keeping the street lights on at night, Sure Start centres, libraries, museums and rural bus services. The Secretary of State has not protected any of those; he has sharpened the knife.

Jim Cunningham: Councils such as Coventry will lose 60% of their income from grants over a 10-year period—that is £80 million—which will inflict unnecessary hardship. The Secretary of State talks about business rates, but it was a previous Conservative Government who changed those in the first place. He is now passing the buck of paying for the police and social care on to local authorities, and three or four years down the line, he will do what Ministers always do and come in and cap it.

Steve Reed: My hon. Friend is right, and devolving the blame for their cuts is part of what the Government are up to with this settlement.
	Some funding for social care has been handed over to councils, which certainly sounds welcome. According to the Tory-led Local Government Association, however, the Government have handed over a £1 billion funding black hole. They have told councils to impose a 2% council tax rise every year for four years to plug that gap, but even that does not raise anywhere near enough to pay for the care that older people need. That increase raises the least money in the poorest areas that most need the funding. The Government have cut the funding then handed it over to councils to take the blame.

Andrew Gwynne: That is exactly the problem Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council finds itself with. This year, it has a £16 million social care deficit. Raising 2% on council tax—based on 100% collection, which is not going to happen—will bring in £1.4 million. The sums do not add up.

Steve Reed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very graphic illustration of the point I was making.
	What this all means is denying vulnerable older and disabled people the home care they need. It means turning away frail, older people who cannot clean their own homes or cook their own food. It means closing down day care centres. It means cutting back on home care visits. It means leaving people stuck in hospital beds because they have no support to go to at home, with the knock-on effect of lengthening hospital waiting times for other patients.

Gordon Marsden: Does my hon. Friend not think it bizarre that the Secretary of State should be trumpeting his reviews for the future for elderly people in places such as Blackpool, where we have a larger than average number of elderly and disabled people, but he is not prepared to identify the really savage cuts to adult social care in Blackpool, which is leading exactly to the sort of situation my hon. Friend describes?

Steve Reed: What is really worrying is that the Secretary of State does not seem to understand what is really going on in councils and in public services across the country.
	Even Tory MPs were terrified of what voters would make of all this, and they threatened to vote it down. On Monday this week, the Secretary of State came to the Chamber with a fix to head off the rebellion. He announced he had found £300 million down the back of a sofa—he would not tell us where it had come from—and then handed nearly all of it to the wealthiest Tory councils as a sweetener just weeks before the council elections. Some 85% of the money will go to Tory-run areas and barely 5% to Labour-run areas, despite the fact that those Labour areas have suffered far bigger cuts since 2010. Whatever happened to the one nation Tories? What about the northern powerhouse? If the word gerrymander did not already exist, we would have to invent it to describe a fix like this.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, but I think that it is factually incorrect. As he will know, rural areas tend to have the oldest populations, yet when this Prime Minister came to power, there was a 50% premium going to urban councils with much younger populations. Whatever the future might have held for them, they were not old then and they did not have the need. Rural areas did and his party did absolutely nothing.

Steve Reed: We need a funding formula that is based on need. The Tories have had six years to give us that and they clearly have not done it.

Jack Dromey: Birmingham has been hit by the biggest cuts in local government history, with cuts of £90 million next year. The city put a powerful case for a fair deal and transitional funding. How can it be right that Birmingham got not one penny in transitional funding, but Surrey got £12 million and Cheshire East, in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s constituency, got £3 million? It is simply not fair.

Steve Reed: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Actually, Surrey got more than £12 million. Surrey, which of course is where the Secretary of State just happens to be an MP, gets the most of any council. [Interruption.] The council next door to where the right hon. Gentleman happens to be an MP gets the most, with £24 million. Hampshire gets £19 million, Hertfordshire gets £14 million and the Prime Minister’s campaigning mum—admirable woman that she is—will be very pleased to see that Oxfordshire gets £9 million.
	I am not criticising what those councils are getting. They did not deserve the scale of the cuts the Government had lined up for them, but then neither do Middlesbrough, Knowsley, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Darlington and all the other more deprived areas that have suffered far deeper cuts in the past six years but have been offered absolutely no help whatever.

Greg Clark: I suggest gently to the hon. Gentleman that if he aspires to be a Local Government Minister, a little geography might help. He is welcome to come to Tunbridge Wells. I would be happy to show him that delightful place. Since we are talking about geography, I am sure he is familiar with Durham County Council. In its submission to the consultation, it said:
	“In our view, no authority can now claim that this approach is ‘unfair’”.
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Steve Reed: I spoke to at least 20 or 30 council leaders over the weekend, at the Labour party’s local government conference, and not a single one thought the right hon. Gentleman’s approach was fair, and I am afraid that leaders of Tory councils agree with me, not him.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I have absolutely no idea what the Secretary of State was saying or where he got it from. According to headlines in our local paper, the funding settlement for Durham has been slammed as unfair by the leader of the council.

Greg Clark: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) has to answer, and then he can give way to the Secretary of State.

Steve Reed: My hon. Friend makes my point for me. The distribution of the money is desperately unfair.

Greg Clark: The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) asked a very reasonable question. The quote came from a document headed: “Durham County Council response to the 2016/17 Local Government Finance Settlement Consultation.” It states:
	“The new approach is fairer and should never be reversed.”

Steve Reed: That is a misinterpretation of what Labour council leaders are saying. However much the Conservatives think this pre-council elections sweetener will work, the Rural Services Network is clear that this political bung will not change the dire financial crisis facing even rural councils over the next four years.

Clive Betts: Has my hon. Friend had any indication from the leaders of metropolitan councils whether they think the new arrangements are fair? As I understand it, only three metropolitan councils will get any of the transitional funding, and two of them happen to be Trafford and Solihull—the only two Conservative metropolitan districts.

Steve Reed: Over the weekend, I spoke to the leaders of Manchester and Newcastle upon Tyne, the deputy mayor of Liverpool and the leader of Leeds City Council. All of them believe that the Government’s actions are devastating local services.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Steve Reed: I want to make some progress, because we are short of time.

Greg Clark: rose—

Steve Reed: No, I will not give way again. I will continue.
	Some areas represented by Tory MPs, such as Stockton on Tees and Nuneaton, get nothing from the additional money. Those MPs need to ask themselves what their voters will think of MPs who vote for deep cuts and council tax rises for their own areas but throw millions at wealthier areas such as Tunbridge Wells.

Greg Clark: rose—

Steve Reed: I will make some progress.

Greg Clark: rose—

Steve Reed: I have given way to the Secretary of State twice, and now I am going to continue.
	I turn now to council tax. On Monday, the Secretary of State denied he had written to councils, telling them to put up council tax. Indeed, it was not the Secretary of
	State who wrote that; it was the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones).
	[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The House is making far too much noise. Both the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State have important things to say. Let them fight it out. Do not make so much noise.

Steve Reed: Barracking will not stop me saying what needs to be said.
	I have a copy of the letter the Minister sent to councils with the provisional settlement. The spreadsheets it links to, which were sent to every town hall, include figures setting out the Government’s expectation that councils will put up council tax by 1.75% every year for four years and, on top of that, impose a further 2% rise to help plug the gap arising from the Government’s failure to fund social care properly. That is 3.75% a year more every year for four years. By 2020, it adds up to a council tax hike of well over 20%. That will cost the average band E council tax payer about £300 more a year. It is very hard indeed to square that massive Tory tax hike with the Tory manifesto pledge to keep council tax as low as possible. The Tories are breaking their promises—they are hiking council tax up.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is making a very important point about council tax. During his statement earlier this week, the Secretary of State failed to understand that different councils have different council tax bases, and he told me to go away and speak to Trafford Council about how it is managing its affairs. There is a 27.4% difference between the council tax bases of Tameside and Trafford. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a difference is inherent in the unfairness under discussion?

Steve Reed: That is one of the many ways in which this settlement is deeply unfair to communities up and down the country.

Paul Farrelly: The situation regarding transitional help is even worse than my hon. Friend has described. The west midlands, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke-on-Trent and Birmingham will all get nothing, but already well-rewarded Conservative counties and districts in the south, including St Albans, Sevenoaks and Surrey Heath—those are names to conjure with—are going to benefit. Does my hon. Friend think that that is right or fair?

Steve Reed: The figures speak for themselves: 85% to Tory councils and 5% to Labour councils. Everyone listening to this debate knows precisely what the Government are up to.
	Turning back to the council tax rises that will be imposed over the next five years, what will people get for all the extra money the Tories will take off them? Will their streets will be swept more often? Will their bins be emptied more regularly? Will their library be saved, or will older people be looked after properly? No, because the Government have cut council funding so hard that the extra money they will take off people will not make up for what the Chancellor has cut.
	Taxpayers will pay more, but they will get less in return. That is Tory value for money—tax hikes and service cuts, picking people’s pockets, while damaging the quality of life of every community up and down this country. That is the story of this funding settlement, which is why every Member should vote against it this evening: a 20% council tax hike designed in Downing Street; services cut to the bone; and £300 million hurled at a handful of wealthier areas in a desperate bid to buy off a Tory Back-Bench rebellion. People pay more but get less from these tax-hiking, pledge-breaking, self-serving Tories.

Andrew Turner: It costs more to deliver public services on an island with no link to the mainland. For instance, in the event of a major emergency, we cannot get help from the mainland fire services in less than an hour, so capability must be maintained to a higher level, to secure the safety of islanders and their visitors. That is just one example of the extra costs. There are many others, which have never been properly recognised in successive local government funding formulae.
	Back in 2002, the Isle of Wight was set to lose the additional costs allowance. The island was counted in with much more affluent Hampshire. The then Labour Government decided to change the rules, resulting in the island being too small to qualify for the ACA on its own. The former leader of the Liberal council, Shirley Smart, and I had to explain why the council could not manage without it.
	The Elliott review—a major study of local government finance—was published in 1996. Professor Elliott recommended that further research was needed on disparities in non-labour costs for only two councils, namely those of the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly. That research has not been carried out. Nick Raynsford, the then Minister for Local and Regional Government, eventually agreed that we would continue to receive the ACA. The extra cost of delivering services on an island was not specifically recognised, but we none the less continued to receive the £3 million or so a year.
	Over the years, the method of funding local government has changed, but the benefits of the island getting the ACA remained somewhat buried in the unfathomable formulae that made up the annual settlements, although I am told that the value decreases over the years. When the move away from the Government grant to local funding was announced, it became clear that this would make the difficulties of the Isle of Wight council even more difficult and even more severe. Indeed, the council could not find a way to carry on beyond this year. For the first time in many years, the Isle of Wight council asked me to assist it to achieve a number of specific sensible proposals that would help it to change.
	The announcements made on Monday did not help the island quite simply because our issues are unique—something that the Secretary of State and even the Prime Minister have recognised. We do not qualify for transitional help because the settlement based on the existing formulae did not disadvantage us. It was the formula itself that disadvantaged us. We do not qualify for the rural sparsity grant because people cannot live very far from a town on an island only 23 miles by 13 miles.
	With the announcement that there was to be a fair funding review, I realised that my Front-Bench team recognised that some problems were unresolved even by the revised settlement. If we can get the real costs of delivering services on an island recognised, we will find a long-term solution to a very long-term problem—but we still have the problem of getting to the review. The future of the Isle of Wight council beyond this year was not secure. Money is in short supply, but when there is not so much of it to go around, resources must be shared most fully.
	I am grateful for the discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about this problem, and I thank him for his offer to visit the island to find the necessary flexibilities for the council to find a way through the challenges until a fair funding settlement can be put in place.
	I will be honest: I had initially decided to vote against the settlement this afternoon. Based on our discussions, however, I will support the Government this year—I say again, this year. I trust my right hon. Friends to deliver on these proposals over the coming months. I am very proud that this Conservative Government are doing what was not done over the past 10 years. I look forward to working with the Government, and on a cross-party basis on the island, for the benefit of the Isle of Wight and all its islanders.

Clive Betts: I want to try to be fair and even-handed in these matters, and I shall focus on the positive elements first. We ought to welcome the four-year settlement on offer, as it is something that local government has for some time been asking for. It is a helpful step forward, providing greater certainty for the future. We are not quite sure yet what efficiency plans local councils will need to draw up to achieve it, but it seems a good starting-point.
	I welcome the money for social care, too. It is reasonable, but I have some questions about how it is going to work. I have had an exchange of correspondence with the Secretary of State and with the Local Government Association. The LGA clearly says that it asked for more money than it has got on transformational spending and it states that this was not recognised.
	I do not object to the fact—indeed, I welcome it—that local councils will be able to raise more money through council tax. It is right in principle for more local services to be paid for by local taxes. As a localist, I firmly believe in that.
	Let me clarify the questions that still need addressing. First, the better care fund that is part of the package is very much back-end loaded in the spending settlement, but there are pressures at the front end, too. The Secretary of State claimed in his statement that the issue of the 2% council tax increase raising more money in richer areas would be addressed through the distribution of the better care fund. Will he put some clear information in the Library to explain how that is going to be done?

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend has raised a key issue. For two years, there will be hardly anything from the better care fund. There will a maximum of only £400 million this year from the 2% precept, nothing from the better care fund, and only £105 million from the fund next year. The funding gap is increasing by
	£700 million, and the Local Government Association’s Councillor Izzi Seccombe has asked for that sum to be released.

Clive Betts: That was the next point that I was going to make. The Government should consider how the better care fund money could be distributed in a way that would help more poor authorities, but it would also be helpful—I know that the LGA has mentioned this—if more of that money could be provided until at least 2017-18, if not into the next financial year. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that, because current back-end loading is a real problem.
	The LGA has drawn my attention to the fact that the council tax base—which relates to the number of properties from which council tax will be raised—is assumed to rise by 7.8%. Will the Government explain precisely how they have made that calculation? It seems a very big increase indeed.
	What account have the Government taken of the ability of clinical commissioning groups to help local authorities with their social care spending? In my own authority of Sheffield, the CCG has said that it faces a substantial reduction in its funding against the anticipated level for next year, but this year it is providing the council with £9 million of transfer funding to help it with its added social care provision. If that money is removed, any element from the better care fund or increased council tax will not be a substitute. I think that that is an issue for cross-departmental work.
	The settlement will clearly result in cuts. The Secretary of State will argue that they will be less severe than those made in the last Parliament, but, of course, they are in addition to those that have already been made. In the last Parliament, when most of the larger percentage cuts were made in the metropolitan areas, which had the greatest needs and the greatest problems, we never once heard mention of a transitional arrangement to provide extra help for those councils. It has only come about now because the Government have developed a core spending power which includes council tax, and the richer councils happen to be more able to raise council tax. As they have suffered a bigger reduction in revenue support grant as a result of the initial spending announcement, a transitional funding arrangement has suddenly and magically been put in place for them.

Greg Clark: I think that, uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman’s memory is letting him down. He should recall that, in the last Parliament, there was a series of tariffs and top-ups to stop the bigger cuts being made. That money was top-sliced from the settlement. What I have now been able to do—and this was recommended by many authorities, including Labour authorities—is bring in new money from outside the settlement, and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that.

Clive Betts: I think that in the last Parliament there was a series of ceilings and safety nets, which is traditional in the operation of local government finance. I do not remember any occasion on which it was reported to the House, after the initial settlement, that extra money had been found to help metropolitan Labour councils that were suffering major cuts.
	What will happen when the transitional funding comes to an end after the first two years of the settlement? Will the money be found from somewhere else, or will it be absorbed into the new review of needs? The Secretary of State announced that towards the end of the settlement he would effectively end the arrangement for negative revenue support grant, which affected some authorities. Which councils will pay for that, or will the money be found, again, from outside?
	The way in which the needs assessment review is carried out is absolutely crucial. The Secretary of State has promised to involve the Select Committee and the LGA. Will he consider introducing an independent element at the outset? Perhaps initial assessments could be carried out by a body such as the Office for Budget Responsibility or the Institute for Fiscal Studies, on a politically neutral basis.
	How can we begin to assess this process when we do not know the details of many of the other grants? When, for example, will the public health grant be announced, so that authorities know what they have to spend in that regard?
	Let me return to the subject of my own authority in Sheffield. Its spending power is to be cut by 4.3%, which is more than the national average of 2.8%. There is also to be a £25 million cut in its revenue support grant. The reality for Sheffield is another £50 million of cuts in services: cuts in rate support grant plus extra spending needs coming on stream will mean a £50 million cut in services.
	This is a very challenging settlement, even for an efficient council such as Sheffield, of which we can be proud. Indeed, we can be proud of the whole of local government for the way in which it has dealt with very challenging spending settlements over a number of years. It has dealt with them in a very efficient way—better than central Government, by and large. However, the cuts that local government is now facing are on top of the cuts it has already had, and they are eventually going to mean more library closures, more run-down parks and a whole number of worsening services.
	As Chair of the Select Committee, I want to end on a positive note. The Committee as a whole has said that we want to work closely with the Secretary of State when the new funding arrangements for the 100% retention of business rates are implemented at the end of this Parliament, to ensure that those arrangements are put in place in the best possible way.

Steve Double: Like many other hon. Members, I cut my teeth in politics in local government: I was elected to Cornwall Council in 2009. It is partly because of that that I simply do not recognise the rhetoric that we continually hear from Labour Members that this Government are somehow seeking to undermine, dismantle or even destroy local government. That rhetoric just does not stand up to scrutiny, because it is this Government who are delivering the changes that local government has been asking for over many years.
	At the heart of this matter is devolution. We are devolving real powers to cities and regions up and down the country. We are seeing this in Cornwall, where we are delivering an historic devolution deal. Cornwall is the first rural area to get a devolution deal. The people of Cornwall have been asking for such a deal for many years, and it is this Government who are delivering it. So Labour’s suggestion that we do not believe in local government just does not stand up to scrutiny. Why would we give more powers to local government if we did not believe in it and trust it to deliver its services?

Barbara Keeley: I do not think that anybody on the Opposition Benches is saying that. It is surprising, however, to find that in devolved Greater Manchester, only one council, Trafford, is benefiting from the transitional funds—

Andrew Gwynne: Tory Trafford.

Barbara Keeley: Indeed; Tory Trafford. I was a councillor in Trafford, by the way, and I have to tell the Secretary of State that the council leader is not called Stephen Anstee; he is called Sean Anstee. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to him twice this week as Stephen—

Greg Clark: rose—

Andrew Gwynne: You can’t intervene on an intervention.

Barbara Keeley: My point is that picking out one local authority among the 10 and giving it such largesse hardly helps the devolution plans.

Steve Double: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I have to tell the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) that it was far too long. We have hardly any time, and if hon. Members make long interventions they are preventing their colleagues from speaking.

Steve Double: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.

Greg Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I do not know why the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) is confused. I know Sean Anstee very well, and I have never been in any doubt as to his name.

Steve Double: I want to address the point about the transitional grant. I am happy to place on record that, as of Monday morning, I was one of the Conservative Members who would have been prepared to walk through the No Lobby this evening and vote against the Government. That was because the proposed settlement was unfair to rural areas. It would have widened the gap in Government funding between rural and urban areas. I campaigned passionately during the election to stand up for Cornwall as a rural area and to seek a fairer funding deal for it, and I was not prepared to support the proposed settlement.
	It is a well-established fact that rural areas have had the raw end of the deal from central Government for decades, despite having some of the highest levels of deprivation in the country and a growing ageing population, with all the increased pressure that that places on the delivery of services and the increased demand that it creates, not to mention the additional challenges and costs of delivering those services in a rural setting. Yet places such as Cornwall have had to accept lower levels of funding for many years, not just for our local government, but for things such as our schools and police. I am proud that this Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have started to address that issue—it has been going on too long. We have started to see extra money put into our schools and, through the rural services delivery grant, we have begun to close the gap in local authority funding.
	When I looked at what was being proposed in the settlement, I was therefore disappointed to find that it would have widened that gap and started to undo much of the good work the Government have already begun. I could not have supported a financial settlement that was going to make an unfair system even more unfair to rural areas. If I had gone through the No Lobby tonight, it would have been my first rebellion against the Government. As someone who has a slightly inherent rebellious streak in their nature, I am slightly disappointed that my rebellion will have to wait for another occasion. I am delighted to say that the Secretary of State has listened to the many voices from across the House from rural areas who highlighted that what was being proposed was simply unacceptable to rural areas. I want to place on the record my thanks to him for the way he has conducted this consultation. He met me, as well as my Cornish colleagues and MPs from many areas, and he listened to our concerns. I am not sure I am going to go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is no longer in his place, and offer a wet kiss, but I want to place on the record my great gratitude for the way in which the Secretary of State has listened to our concerns and come forward with proposals that address them.

Catherine McKinnell: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have detected that the vast majority of north-east councils, save for Northumberland, will get nothing from the transitional fund. The argument he appears to be confirming in his speech is that the decisions taken by the Secretary of State to grant transitional funding are based on staving off a Conservative rebellion, rather than on actually giving it to local authorities that need it the most.

Steve Double: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but this is simply about the case that was made about rural constituencies, where the funding was going to widen the gap we had begun to close. That was the issue at stake. I am delighted that not only have funds been made available through this transitional grant to make sure that that gap does not get any wider, but, probably more importantly, we have the promise of a comprehensive review of the cost of delivering services. That gives us the opportunity to establish that it costs more to deliver services in rural areas than in urban areas.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right about the fundamental needs reassessment and he is right to congratulate the Secretary of State, but does he share my disappointment that, repeatedly in January, the Opposition spokesman refused to sign up to closing the gap?

Steve Double: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We need to address this issue, and this review gives us the opportunity we have asked for, time and again, to establish the true cost. Tonight, I will therefore be happy to support the Government on this motion.

Louise Ellman: Liverpool is one of the most deprived local authority areas. It is also entrepreneurial and outward-looking, always ready to adapt to new circumstances and welcoming innovation. Despite the valiant efforts of Mayor Joe Anderson and his hard-working councillors, it is not possible to protect the people of Liverpool against the cuts from this Government—cuts of 58% up to now, with an additional 9% cut in funding for next year. Indeed, that cut might be even bigger, because the council still does not know how much money will be available for two crucial services—I am referring to the public health grant and the independent living fund. Both of those vital funds are important for the well-being of the people of Liverpool, and we still have no final figure on how much money will be available there.
	In my short contribution tonight, I want to focus on the growing crisis in adult social care. Adult social care in Liverpool has already suffered a £90 million cut as a result of Government actions. We have been told that the new precept, the new tax to be levied on the people of Liverpool, and the Better Care Fund will resolve that situation. When we look at the facts, we can see that those two measures together will deliver £2.9 million next year, but there is already a need for an additional £15.2 million to cover the implementation of the national living wage and the demographic changes resulting from the rise in the number of elderly people in Liverpool. That means that the measures that we have been told will solve the problem will do very little indeed next year.
	The council is not standing still and simply wringing its hands. It has been trying to develop innovative ways of working. It is talking to the local health authority—the clinical commissioning group—to see how it can work better with them to produce support services, but there is no way that the funding gap can be plugged next year. There will be more disastrous cuts for very vulnerable people in Liverpool. I am already hearing, day after day, from individuals—they are often people suffering severe disabilities who are trying very hard to live a normal life—who have been told that their care packages will be cut because, despite the council’s best efforts, the funding for those packages is being significantly reduced.

Liz Kendall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must look at bringing forward to this year the additional funding that they promised from the Better Care Fund, so that there is not a gap, and so that the council at least gets some extra money to support vulnerable, elderly and disabled people?

Louise Ellman: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. In the case of Liverpool, it is possible that there could be some help in future years, but the figure that has been put forward at the moment is purely an indicative one. The council does not know what will be available in the future.
	It is also important to recognise the very low tax base of a place such as Liverpool. Some 78% of its properties are in bands A and B, making the potential of the council to raise funds locally very difficult indeed.
	I am acutely aware that there have been problems across all public services in Liverpool, because of consecutive years of Government cuts, including what is to come next year. I know that the council has done its best to protect people from those cuts. I have focused on adult social care, because that affects the people who are most in need. I go back to the comments that I made earlier about the council not knowing how much money will be available in the independent living fund. That is also about supporting people who need help the most.
	My concern is that, unless the Government act now, more and more people will face crises and more and more people will suffer great hardships. Those people who are striving hard to live a normal life will find that the rug is cut away from underneath their feet. That is intolerable, and I ask the Government and the Secretary of State to revisit this area now, to look again at the provision of adult social care in Liverpool and in other areas of need and to take action so that more and more people do not suffer in this unacceptable way.

Bob Neill: This is a particularly important local government finance settlement debate. In the past, we have tended to have debates where we are essentially rolling forward, year on year, much of the same. The difference this year—and it is very much to the credit of the Secretary of State—is that the settlement is genuinely transformational, as it moves away from what was essentially a flawed system. That is why this is so important.
	There are two flaws in the system. First, it did nothing to take account of efficiency. The efficient authority gained nothing; everything was predicated on demonstrating—in certain parameters in the formula—need. It almost entrenched dependency, which drove out innovation and initiative. Now the Government have put in place a raft of measures which enable local authorities to say not “How much do we need?”, but “How do we change our own circumstances? How do we grow our rate base?”
	The work that has been done through the Localism Act 2011, the power of general competence and the ability of local authorities such as Bromley to enter into commercial partnerships as landowners and investors with their business community has all changed the landscape. The ability to go for genuine growth, but in sensible terms, changes things. It is sad that we have seen such an old-fashioned and almost demeaning approach to local government from Labour. That is the first and most important point I wish to make.
	The second important point is that the new approach moves away from an idea that central Government must sort out local government’s problems all the time. We are putting powers back into the hands of local authorities and doing so with a measure of fairness. The important thing is that there has been a transition. Because it was transformational, it was necessary to ease that move from a dependency culture to a self-sufficiency culture. That is utterly to the good. Now we need to make sure that as we go forward, we get the proper baselines right.

Anna Turley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Neill: I will give way once.

Anna Turley: In Redcar and Cleveland we have lost 3,000 jobs at the steelworks, which is the equivalent of £10 million per year in business rates. In London that would be the equivalent of 176,000 jobs going overnight. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there are differences that mean that councils have to respond in different ways to their economic circumstances?

Bob Neill: Yes, of course. That is precisely why the Government set up the local enterprise partnerships, and why under the previous regime we set up the arrangements for top-ups and tariffs, which I hope we can simplify in future.
	The simplistic idea that we cannot be, to some degree, masters of our own destiny is wrong. In particular, what seems to me utterly wrong is that a local authority such as Bromley, which has historically had the lowest unit costs per head in London, was treated on a formulaic basis in exactly the same way as local authorities that had never bothered to keep their unit costs down and which were never, therefore, driven to efficiency in the same way as we were. Once, when I commented that there was no reward for efficiency in the formula, I was told by a civil servant, “Well, Minister, surely efficiency is its own reward.” He did not grasp the concept. I am glad to say now that Ministers and officials in the Department for Communities and Local Government do grasp the concept, which should be fundamental to the way we go forward.
	I welcome what has been done for Bromley, but more importantly, I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that we take forward those basic principles to the next degree so that when we get to the calculation of the needs element, I hope we will remember that there are more than simply the old-fashioned demographic trends in what constitutes needs. As has been observed, the way that needs were calculated in the past, for example, took a simplistic weighting of density as equating with deprivation. That was not the case at all. The way that both inner London and outer London have changed demonstrates that clearly.

Graham Stuart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bob Neill: I had better not because I need to save time.
	Very often, the greatest driver of adult social care is not purely deprivation; it is age profile, as much as anything else. We need to build that sort of thing into the equation. We also need to make sure that where local authorities—

Liz Kendall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Neill: I am sorry. I have been generous and time is short.
	We need to make sure, going forward, that where local authorities can demonstrate long-term efficiency and a record of reinvesting in improved services, that is given as much weighting in the calculation of a formula as a purely formulaic needs ratio matrix that has been established in the past. That will drive behavioural change. Those of us who call ourselves localists want to give local authorities the tools, the means and the incentive to change behaviour and to be more efficient and more self-reliant. We are part-way down the track on that.
	The return of business rates to the localities is a huge step forward. It was an error that my party made in government, but we have rectified it and that is a good thing. The next step that I hope the Secretary of State will take in the succeeding years of this settlement is to entrench efficiency as something that should be rewarded, just as much as ticking boxes on the needs indices are. Then we will get genuine fairness in local government, something that is genuinely responsive to local needs, and gives local representatives the ability to shape their policies and financing to the needs, concerns and aspirations of their communities. If we achieve that, this settlement will be worth a very great deal indeed. I commend it to the House.

Jim McMahon: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a serving councillor on Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council.
	I pay tribute to councillors up and down the land for the fantastic work they do in delivering excellent public services right across the communities we are here to serve. Time after time, residents say that they trust local government far more than central Government. Review after review has concluded that local government is the most efficient arm of government—far more efficient than any central Government Department.
	However, the term “lions led by donkeys” could not be more apt than when we look at the relationship between central Government and local councillors, who are the frontline in delivering services and often the last line of defence for the communities they are there to serve. For far too long, local government has been subjected to the whims and follies of Ministers who use critical public services as a plaything—as a toy.
	In central Government’s armoury, cash is the weapon of choice. As a councillor for 12 years, and as a former council leader representing a community of 250,000 people, I have witnessed and, indeed, implemented settlements passed down by this Government. As demand for support increased, money was taken away, as the link between need and the available cash was being broken.
	The Government were warned time and time again that removing money from prevention would only shunt costs on to other parts of government. That is why, for almost every pound taken from local councils in Greater Manchester, the same amount has been shunted across to welfare and health, because the pressures just get moved around the system. That makes things worse for the people we represent, and it saves the Government no money whatever.

Liz Kendall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of delayed discharges from hospital is almost £1 billion a year? That could buy more than 40,000 elderly people a full year of home care. How does that make moral or economic sense?

Jim McMahon: I absolutely agree. The better care fund had a mechanism for putting money at the frontline to make savings further down the line, but it was completely inadequate for the needs that were there.
	The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has placed on record its view that some councils could well fall over. The challenge, of course, will not come from one lone council failing to set a budget; it will come in the courts. As entitlement to basic services such as children’s services, education and social care are taken away, somebody will test that entitlement in court. When the judgment is that their entitlement has unlawfully been taken away, that will send a shockwave through the system that central Government are not fully ready for. At that point, the system may well fall over.
	The truth is that the Government do not want to be honest about the true cost of cuts. Most people will accept that adult social care is one of the biggest challenges facing local government and society more generally. Our older population grew by 11.4% between 2010 and 2014, while core funding was being taken away. Age UK estimates that more than 1 million people have unmet care demands. What is the Government’s response? It is lacklustre, weak and pathetic; it simply does not address the social care crisis in this country today.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend is perfectly right to quote those figures from Age UK for unmet care demands, but the need to meet those demands falls on unpaid family carers. The Government passed the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which gave carers rights, but there is no funding for that. That is what legislation will have to address.

Jim McMahon: I thank my hon. Friend. We can talk about figures, and this is a debate about the settlement, so we are likely to do that, but we need to think about the human cost too. Down the line, what will these things mean for individuals, families and our communities? Oldham’s £200 million of cuts leaves a gross budget of £188 million. More than half of the town’s money has been taken away by the Government.
	If the answer to providing adult social care is a 2% levy on council tax, let us follow that through to see what it means. For Oldham Council, a 2% increase in council tax, as directed by Government, would generate £1.5 million, because of course the town has a low council tax base to begin with. However, the increase—just—in the living wage impacts on social care contracts, and so, not even taking into account an older population or increased demand, there is a £2.7 million increase in wage bills. With £1.5 million generated in council tax and £2.7 million in increased wage bills through the Government’s living wage, the numbers do not add up. This does not even allow us to stand still; we are going backwards.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) is very pleased with a cash bonanza to buy his vote today, but some of us were not so fortunate. We had a raw settlement and a raw deal from this Government, because on top of the £200 million in cuts, we cannot ignore the rural relief grant. So it is cash after cash after cash for rural areas, not taking into account a single bit of need. It has already been pointed out that 85% of this funding is being given to Tory shires, but let me go closer to home and look at Greater Manchester.
	Trafford has some rural areas, but let us look at them: Bowdon, Alderley Edge and Hale—“Footballers’ Wives” territory. This is the most affluent borough in Greater Manchester. It has the highest council tax, the highest business rate base, and the healthiest budget as a result of this Government’s policies—but that is not all. Because of the way that you have protected your side, you have something in common with Trafford—Baroness Williams of Trafford, the Local Government Minister and former Trafford Council leader, who lives in Trafford. Is a “friends and family” discount being offered? What do we need to do, Greg? Do you want to come and live in Oldham? If that helps our financial situation, then we will—

Natascha Engel: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is new, but he speaks through the Chair, so when he is saying “you” he is addressing me. Members are referred to as hon. Members or named by their constituency.

Jim McMahon: I am very sorry for that slip, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The truth is that the five most deprived areas get absolutely zero—nothing—from this Government. At the same time, the five least deprived areas, together, share £5.3 million between them.

Greg Clark: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is new to this House, but first he should know that of course Trafford does not get any rural grant because it is not a rural authority. Secondly, he might want to reflect on the remarks that he made about my noble Friend Baroness Williams of Trafford, who is, and has been throughout her career, an excellent public servant. She has done great work, not only in Trafford, for Greater Manchester, and is a woman of the utmost integrity. I think he will want to reflect on that.

Jim McMahon: I am quite happy with my comment. There is a direct link between Government Members who had to be bought for their vote today and the fact that the only council in Greater Manchester to receive the transitional grant happens to be the place where the Local Government Minister lives. I am sorry about that, but I did not choose where the Baroness chose to be a council leader and chooses to live.
	The crux of the issue is that the Government steered through the cuts in a very politically tactical way but have not at all understood their true impact, which has been found in review after review, and by the Public Accounts Committee in this House. If the responsibility of Government is to look after the welfare of their citizens, then on that test I am afraid they have failed.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I stood here a month ago and said that now was the time for the rural voice to be heard. A month on, I am pleased to say that the rural voice has spoken and has been heeded, at least to some extent. I pay tribute to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has conducted the consultation, making time for colleagues in all parts of the House and councils from all parts of the country. He has turned a consultation exercise, which can sometimes seem like a rubber-stamping exercise, into a genuine engagement with people across the country.

Greg Knight: I believe that my hon. Friend and I are on the same side on this matter. Does he agree that the test of a good Minister is that they are prepared to change when they are faced with a valid argument for doing so? That is what the Secretary of State has done following the representations that my hon. Friend, I and others have made. The deal may not be perfect, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is better than it was?

Graham Stuart: I expect that my right hon. Friend and I will always be on the same side on such matters. He is right in what he says.
	One of the most important aspects of the settlement—the promise to look again fully at the needs of local government—is not actually in the settlement, and it is long overdue. As my right hon. Friend has just said, when the facts change, sometimes my opinions do, too. The fact is that this country has a fast-ageing population, as Labour Members have said, and the distribution figures show that older people are disproportionately to be found in rural, rather than urban, areas—[Interruption.] Some people are saying “Nonsense!” and “Rubbish!” I do not know what dataset they have, but just as there is a massive discrepancy between the amounts per head for rural and urban areas—it was 50% when Labour left power, and it is 45% now—

Liz Kendall: Nobody from the Opposition is denying that elderly people live in rural areas, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to consider those people’s ability to pay? The most deprived areas have the greatest need for publicly funded care. Does he not agree that that must be part of the equation?

Graham Stuart: Some of the hon. Lady’s colleagues deny that the people in rural areas are older, on average, than those in urban areas. They shouted “Rubbish!” just moments ago when I asserted that, even though the shadow Minister acknowledged it in his speech in January. People are, on average, older in rural areas, and the hon. Lady is clearly unaware of—or, like too many of her colleagues, closes her ears to—the fact that people in rural areas are, on average, poorer than those in urban areas. Average earnings based on residence are lower in rural areas than in urban areas. Average earnings based on place of employment are lower in rural areas than in urban areas. That is not to say that centres of real deprivation do not need special and specific support, but to generalise that the poor burghers of Sheffield are all on the breadline, whereas everyone in Withernsea in my constituency is living it up in some rich, prosperous rural idyll, is nonsense. I know that the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) would not do that, but too much of the Labour party’s argument has suggested otherwise, as has much of today’s debate.
	If we are to move to a fair system, we must recognise how iniquitous it was of the Labour Government to use density to drive funding to wealthier, younger, less needy urban areas. The Labour party is now screaming about an adjustment that recognises an ageing population, predominantly based in rural areas, who are also poorer. Those are the facts; if they are not, I will happily take another intervention from the hon. Ladies who shouted “Rubbish!” at me. The Labour party was shameful in skewing the funding formulae. It is equally shameless now in pretending that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is being unfair in dealing with the mess that the previous Labour Government left behind and making the tough decisions that he has to make.
	In a less partisan spirit, I say to Members from all parts of the House that we must work together on the needs assessment to embed efficiency, not dependency and incompetence, and to recognise hard need such as an ageing population. Someone who is relatively healthy but old has—guess what?—higher health needs and higher social care needs. They are entwined, as colleagues from all parts of the House have said. They are predominantly less well funded in rural areas than in urban areas, so there is greater need. The Labour party should hang its head in shame at the fact that it turned its face utterly against that clear and present need. If the party apologised, as it should, for doing so, it would have much more traction in the debate to appeal for a fair and proper settlement.

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Does he agree that the review needs to take place sooner rather than later—there must not be any delay—and that it must cover all needs, including the demographics, which is very important in rural areas?

Graham Stuart: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion of the rural interest, along with so many other colleagues, in arguing for a fair settlement. In the rural fair share campaign, which has always been a cross-party campaign, we have been clear that we want something that is fair to all.
	The reason I have been so confrontational with Labour colleagues is that I am starting to hear the old untruths coming out, such as the suggestion that there is a difference, as the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) described it, between some phenomenally wealthy Trafford and some downtrodden Oldham, and that the allocation of money is utterly unfair. Of course the people taking the biggest percentage reductions in the Government grant were predominantly, in the original settlement, rural areas. Mets were getting an average reduction of 19% and rural areas were seeing cuts of 30%-plus in their Government-supported spending. That is the truth: those are the facts in the data table. Yet, to listen to the hon. Gentleman, one would think the opposite was true. He puts forward the entirely false argument that the cuts are somehow unfair. Transitional arrangements are put in place to soften the blow.
	We now have the opportunity—I must say that I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—for all of us, on both sides of the House, to move to a settlement that is fair to rural and urban areas alike and to Labour and Conservative areas alike. Never ever again must we have a Government who, for partisan purposes, put in place a skewed and unfair formula in the outrageous, shameless and shameful way that the Labour Government did during their 13 years.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. I must lower the speech limit to four minutes.

Jenny Chapman: I was hoping I was not going to be the next speaker because I am speechless after that peroration by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). It is extraordinary what this Government have managed to do in pitting town against village, the north against the south, and the metropolitan areas against the shires. It is disgraceful. They have created division by the decision they made on the original settlements and then by finding this magic, back-of-sofa money. I have never known anything so deliberately partisan. I did not believe I would ever see anything like it.
	I admire the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who is no longer in his place, for at least having the honesty to come to the Chamber and tell colleagues he was thinking of voting against the Government today, but that he had changed his mind. He changed his mind—he was very open about why—because his council will get some extra money. He therefore felt that he could vote with the Government. Well, give me some extra money and I might think about doing so!
	I do not resent Conservative Members for being good champions of their areas and winning some extra funding for their councils—that is one of the things we are in Parliament to do—but I hope that they enjoy the extra money they get and that they win the shire council seats for which it was clearly designed to ensure victory. I hope that they enjoy that, but that they realise it will happen on the back of services in my area and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), such as services for deprived children, the children centres that are closing in my constituency, and the libraries that are closing—

Greg Clark: rose—

Jenny Chapman: My constituency has two libraries, both of which are to close. The market at the heart of my town is set to close. I hope Conservative Members enjoy the extra funding that they will receive, because my town and the people in my town are angry. I have never seen them this angry before. They are angry about what is going to happen, but also about the unfairness.

Greg Clark: rose—

Jenny Chapman: I will not give way. Why should I give way? Why should I give way to the Secretary of State who is ripping the heart out of my constituency? Why should I give way to him? He had half an hour at the Dispatch Box; he made a statement on Monday; he had Communities and Local Government questions on Monday. He has dismissed all attempts by Labour Members to lobby him. He has provided nothing for my constituency. My constituency is a town the same size as Wokingham. My constituency gets nothing from transitional funding—not a penny. In fact, we will lose £2,000 a year. Wokingham is getting £2.1 million of additional funding. The two towns are the same size and have completely different needs. My town is losing out.

Greg Clark: rose—

Jenny Chapman: I am not going to give way. I am going to allow other Members to make the case for their constituencies. I hope the Secretary of State listens to what we are saying and takes it on board. I know that he is familiar with my part of the country. He needs to think about the needs up there, because the people of the north-east will never, ever forgive this Government for what they are doing to our region.

Rebecca Harris: The need to reduce the deficit has inevitably put pressure on councils right across the country. Even those that have made substantial and successful savings are understandably concerned about the transitional period during the move from centralised funding to an accountable system of self-funding.
	At the start of this year, the leader of Essex County Council wrote to me and my fellow Essex MPs, setting out his concerns regarding the provisional local government finance settlement, which he thought would see the council lose over £50 million a year more than it was anticipating, despite having budgeted carefully. We took our case to the Secretary of State and I welcome the fact that he listened. As we know, he has made available up to £3.5 billion for social care.
	Essex, like many council areas, has a serious and pressing challenge in its ageing population. It has the longest coastline in Britain and attractive coastal towns, so it is an attractive place to retire to. Over the next decade, our older population is expected to grow by 9%. As has been said, it should not be assumed that just because someone lives in beautiful rural Essex, they are not stretched for cash. People who live on a park homes site on a fixed income may not be the richest members of society. The demographic pressures are huge and we welcome enormously the fact that the Government have listened to our case.
	Essex County Council is very much looking forward to the challenge of being more go-getting when it is dependent on the retention of business rates. We recently hired a new chief executive who is an ex-businessman, and he is taking an incredibly positive approach. We believe that the devolution agenda will transform local government from being about service delivery and dealing with needs to being organisations that set out to change their areas, encourage business development, and create jobs and growth. It is businesses that create jobs, wealth and growth, not politicians like us and local councillors.
	Councils such as Essex County Council, which have shown that they can make efficiency savings, will benefit from the security of this four-year settlement. During this difficult time for all public finances, councils need to be able to plan for the medium term. Due to the foresight of this four-year settlement, they can do so. This settlement brings greater transparency and parity in local government finances than we have ever had before.
	The retention of the new homes bonus, which the Secretary of State mentioned, is incredibly valuable. Councils will have to be active in bringing forward new development and new houses, rather than sitting back passively, as they used to in the days of top-down national targets, when large green-belt sites were allocated to big unit developers, which may or may not have built on them because it was not in their business model to get on and build houses and so reduce house prices. Councils know that they can now invest officer resources not just in bringing forward new businesses and making life easier for businesses in their area, but in bringing through new developments, perhaps on smaller sites with local businesses, that will be sold to local people through local estate agents.
	The entire package is an enormous step forward in local government finance. It will be very healthy for democracy and business creation around the country.

Liam Byrne: I want to make just three points to the Secretary of State. Let me start by saying that, as he knows, he has enjoyed a good reputation among many Labour Members. I am afraid that that reputation has taken a bit of a battering from the settlement he presented this afternoon. It is with some sorrow that I say that.
	I simply cannot square with any sense of fairness an outcome that means that budgets in Buckinghamshire will rise by 11.5% by 2016-17, while budgets in Birmingham will fall by 10% over the same period. Quite frankly, the battering of Birmingham has gone on for far too long. We had looked to this settlement for some sense of salvation.
	I will be grateful for small mercies, and I am grateful that the Secretary of State recognises Birmingham’s case that there is a fairer funding formula to be had. The challenge is that the Secretary of State does not plan to introduce that new settlement until 2016-17. There is nothing to accommodate the shortfalls in 2014-15 or 2015-16. Yet if we were on the funding formula that the Secretary of State acknowledges would be good, an extra £98 million would be flowing into our city right now.
	The Secretary of State has said that that is not realistic because there is a fixed budget: what comes from one authority is what goes to another. We listened to those arguments, yet in the past couple of days, lo and behold, from down the back of the sofa in the Secretary of State’s office comes £150 million of transitional funding, plus £90 million in rural delivery grant, none of which is available for the city of Birmingham. There is no attempt to address the unfairness of past settlements or to tackle our weaker ability to raise a social care precept, no confirmation of flexibility about capital receipts, no clarity on our four-year settlement, and no way of bringing forward any funding in the better care programme for social care. The reduction in our spending power is twice the national average, despite the extra needs in our city.
	In the weeks to come, I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on not only the knock-on effects on local government, but the danger of knocking over the health service in east Birmingham. As he knows, my constituency is home to Heartlands hospital, which has been put into special measures, has a £54 million deficit and has now been taken over by Queen Elizabeth hospital. There is unprecedented pressure at the front door and A&E, which is exacerbated because the crisis in the social care system means that it is so much harder to get older residents out and into their homes. The delayed discharge rate at Heartlands hospital has increased over the past year by four times the national average. According to the House of Commons Library, public funding shortages are driving that whopping increase. Delays due to public funding shortages have increased by 1,000% in the past year.
	I put it as gently as I can to the Secretary of State: we have a funding crisis in social care that threatens to knock over our national health service. I know that he will say that funding solutions for social care are coming down the track, but the crisis in our health and social care services is not in the years to come, but now. On top of that, Birmingham City Council anticipates that it will have to take another £92 million from social care in the next couple of years. That is not credible or realistic, but intensely dangerous. Birmingham demands new solutions from the Secretary of State, and not for the years to come. Birmingham needs them now.

Mark Spencer: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who has great experience of working in the Treasury. I gently say to him that I would be more than happy to offer him a deal—not that I have the power to do so at the moment—of swapping per capita funding for his constituents in Birmingham with that for constituents in Nottinghamshire, East Yorkshire, Cornwall, or any such rural areas. Today, per capita funding—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, he can do so, but shouting from a sedentary position is not the thing to do.

Liam Byrne: Let me offer the hon. Gentleman a deal: will he join me in arguing for a special and strong weighting for poverty in the needs-based formula that the Secretary of State plans to review?

Mark Spencer: I am more than happy to argue with the right hon. Gentleman, and stand side by side with him if we are talking about older people and those who are less wealthy, who tend to be found in rural areas. That is the challenge that we face today. In those rural areas, the population is not only older, but less wealthy and people have further to travel to the resources and services that they desperately need. For someone who lives in a rural area, needs a hospital appointment and has to use public transport, the public transport links are not as good as they are in urban areas. The doctor is further away than a doctor in an urban area. There are much greater challenges for those who live in rural areas.

Andrew Bridgen: My hon. Friend should also remember that pupils in Birmingham get funded £1,000 a year more than my pupils in Leicestershire, yet one of the most deprived towns in the county is in my constituency.

Mark Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Thank goodness that at last the Government are starting to address the challenges faced by rural areas. The Secretary of State has given us a four-year settlement, which means that local authorities will not be living hand to mouth but can plan for the next four years. They know what they have got coming, which means that they can plan to use some of the resources and reserves that some of them are sitting on, to ensure that they protect our constituents and look after their needs. They will not have to sit on those reserves thinking that they may need them within the next 12 months.
	That builds in a buffer so that authorities that are keen to promote business and housing developments, and to ensure that the local economy expands, have time to increase the amount of revenue that they generate. That is a positive step forward, and I am working alongside Nottinghamshire County Council and the local enterprise partnership to try to create jobs in my part of Nottinghamshire, so that in future we can live by our own means, and generate and boost the local economy. Authorities that give a boost to their high streets and protect local shops will reap the benefits of that when those successful businesses are able to pay rates back to the authority and contribute to the local economy by creating jobs.
	It is sometimes enormously frustrating in Nottinghamshire when I hear councils complain that they are short of cash and will have to shut services, when at the same time one of my district councils is working with the county council to spend £1.4 million on swapping people’s dustbins. My constituents do not understand why we need to spend £1.4 million on that, at a time when the council says it is short of cash to deliver the services my constituents desperately want. Hopefully, with the help of the Secretary of State we can get to a more balanced settlement, have a vision for the future, and mitigate that change with the support that he is providing.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Let me begin by providing clarification to the Secretary of State about comments on fairness from Durham County Council—this is via the wonders of modern technology—that related to certain aspects of the provisional settlement and not to the total or final settlement. The council said that the settlement would put the county at a huge disadvantage, and that none of the extra cash has been targeted at areas with the greatest need. It added that the settlement was “unfair” and “far too late”, and I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that clarification.

Greg Clark: It is clear that that is a response to the statutory consultation, and to reassure the hon. Lady that I am not taking anything out of context, the section that I quoted from is entitled, in bold, “Fairness of Settlement” and states:
	“In our view, no authority can now claim that this approach is ‘unfair’.”
	It is as clear as day.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I think that is the fourth time we have heard that from the Secretary of State this afternoon, but that does not make it right. Durham County Council has clarified that, and it thinks that the settlement is totally unfair.

Jim McMahon: Simon Henig, the leader of Durham County Council, has just sent me a message to say that that aspect was part of the original consultation, and that it does not consider the latest round, which includes the transition fund, to be fair.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming what I have just said. Those of us in Durham think that the settlement is absolutely shocking because, once again, it hits hardest those councils with the greatest problems and highest levels of disadvantage, such as Durham. I had hoped that the Secretary of State’s comments on Monday would go some way to addressing the balance in favour of areas with the highest need, but I am afraid there was not a glimmer of that. Given the Government’s record of unfairness and widening inequalities, it is perhaps not surprising that the settlement massively favours Conservative councils. In fact, 87% of the funding announced on Monday is going to Tory councils.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he would not take an intervention from me.
	The only north-east council to benefit from the £150 million additional funding announced on Monday is Northumberland. That is staggering, especially as Durham is also a substantially rural area. It is odd, then, that Northumberland is the only council to benefit from the rural fund. Indeed, if we look across the country, the areas to benefit most are Surrey, with £11.9 million; Hampshire, with £9.4 million; North Yorkshire, with £9.2 million; and Devon, with £8.3 million. Examples of the reduction in core spending tell a similar story: Durham had a reduction of minus 4.1%; Newcastle minus 4.4%; and Sunderland minus 4.3%. Compare that with Surrey, which has a decrease of only minus 1.1% and North Yorkshire minus 0.3%.

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, just because we are very short of time.
	It is very clear from those figures that shire county areas and southern authorities have received below-average reductions in core spending power, while deprived areas have received above-average decreases, continuing the unfair trend set by the coalition Government. As we have heard from other Labour Members, the very councils suffering the highest cuts have a higher demand for children’s services, evidenced by severe cuts to our children’s centres, with most closed under this Government, and greater demand for adult social care and higher levels of need for good public health. That is not, however, reflected in core spending power per dwelling. The average across the country is £1,838, but for Durham, an area of high disadvantage, it is only £1,608. By comparison, the whole of Surrey gets more than £2,000 per dwelling, while Richmond upon Thames receives £1,866.
	Based on current forecasts, Durham’s total savings target for the next four years is £105 million, so there will have been £260 million of cuts since austerity began—figures so large that they are difficult to comprehend.
	Figures are important to understanding the gross unfairness in Government funding, but we need to take a moment to consider what this means for people who need council services. Even by dipping into council reserves, Durham faces severe challenges with regard to social care charges, the provision of essential youth services and support for vital bus services. I say to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) that Durham is a rural area, too. It needs to support its bus services, but the Government are not allowing for that in the current formula, not to mention any access to leisure facilities.
	The council will do its best to ensure that the most vulnerable people are protected and that, where it can, capital will be used to promote economic growth and tourism, but the Government should take no comfort from that. The statement on Monday was a disgrace in that it failed to address the needs of some of the most disadvantaged people in the country. The settlement leads to the extraordinary position whereby residents in more affluent areas are receiving services of higher standards and greater volume than in areas where a lot of the people are low waged or where historically they have high levels of poor health. That cannot be fair and no amount of loquaciousness and tongue twisting from Government Members will make it so. It is time for a fair local government finance settlement based on need, not the political colour of the local authority.

Peter Heaton-Jones: I will start in the way I concluded the debate on this issue in the House on Monday, by saying, “Thank you” to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for listening carefully to the representations made to him and for making significant improvements from the draft settlement. As there has been quite a bit of to-ing and fro-ing here about what local authorities might think, let me add to that list. I have in my hand a piece of paper.
	North Devon District Council was dissatisfied with the draft settlement, as I made clear in the House after its introduction. I spoke to the council at great length. It was not happy about being unfairly treated. It believed, as did many, that the settlement did not tackle the unfairness between rural and urban authorities, and it asked me to do something about it.
	After much intense lobbying, the Secretary of State has come forward with a new and improved final settlement, and this afternoon, at about half-past 2, the council issued a media release—not from the Conservative group, but from the neutral officers of the council. The headline reads, “Council welcomes Rural Services Delivery Grant increase”, and it continues:
	“North Devon Council has welcomed news that a government grant is to be increased, which will help benefit rural areas like North Devon… It means, instead of £77,000 identified in the draft settlement for North Devon…the district is now likely to receive £308,000. Meanwhile, for 2017/18, the council is now likely to see its Rural Services Delivery Grant come in at £249,000, instead of the previously predicted £134,000… Executive Member responsible…says: ‘This is really good news for North Devon and other rural districts.”
	That goes to the heart of the problem that I and many other Members had with the draft settlement: it was unfair. There followed, however, a great deal of lobbying from us and a great deal of listening from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is disappointing, therefore, to hear the Opposition describe this as a fix to head off a rebellion—talk about glass half empty. My right hon. Friend listened to colleagues, responded positively and significantly improved the final settlement. We should all welcome that.
	The funding of adult social care is a serious issue. In north Devon, and Devon as a whole, with its older demographic, of course it presents a challenge, but, again, the Government and the Secretary of State have sought, in the final settlement, to do something positive. During Labour’s 13 years in government, when it could clearly see this challenge looming—the demographics were there for all to see—it did absolutely nothing to address the problem. It left it to this Government to do something about it, and as always happens, the electorate recognised that only a Conservative Government would do that.

Kevin Foster: We have heard a lot about party politics. Given that the extra money for Devon covers Exeter, has Labour objected to additional money for social care in Exeter?

Peter Heaton-Jones: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) does not seem to be in his place. Neither are any Liberal Democrats here for this important debate, despite their trying to sell themselves as the party of local government that wants to build from the ground up. There are not many of them, but not one of them has come to speak in this important debate.
	I thank my right hon. Friend again for listening and making this significant improvement, but we need to go further to address the long-term unfairness between rural and urban settlement grants. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said that £130 million was needed for the rural grant. I hope the Government can look at that aspiration, but in the short term, I welcome the settlement, as do Devon County Council and North Devon District Council. It shows what can be achieved when Conservative MPs and local authorities and a Conservative Government work together, listen and get a settlement that I hope we can all support in the Lobbies this evening.

Julie Cooper: I well remember the Prime Minister in 2010 speaking to the country and declaring that we were all in this together. That had a ring of fairness that resonated with the British people. He went on to say that those with the broadest shoulders would bear the greatest burden. Sadly, those were just words and were never backed up with action. My constituency is one of the least affluent areas of the country, and despite that, since 2010, Burnley Council has seen its funding cut by a staggering 54%. Cuts of that magnitude have also been the order of the day at Lancashire County Council. As if all that is not bad enough, during the same period other, more prosperous authorities have had their funding increased, which demonstrates an outrageous absence of fairness. The people of Burnley have known since 2010 that we are certainly not all in this together.
	As the former leader of Burnley Borough Council, I am no stranger to belt-tightening exercises, and I can tell the House that it was exceptionally difficult at times. The Minister for Housing and Planning may well remember meeting me on more than one occasion when I pleaded with him to grant transition funding for Burnley. He will, no doubt, also remember the long and tedious process involved for Burnley and other authorities to secure that most essential funding. Having negotiated numerous hurdles, Burnley Borough Council demonstrated efficient transitional activity. It was, and is, an efficient council.
	When this year’s provisional settlements were announced, councils across the country were, unsurprisingly, angry about the cuts to their budget, but it seemed like the Secretary of State was listening when he announced an additional £300 million over the next two years. We welcomed that, until we saw where the funding is going to go. Will it be distributed to those areas most in need? Of course not. Given this Government’s record, we ought not to be surprised that more than 80% of that additional funding will go to the most prosperous authorities.
	Since 2010, the five least deprived authorities have, overall, had their budget cut by £7 per person, while, shockingly, the five most deprived authorities have had their budgets cut by more than £336 per head. Will the Minister explain what funding formula he has used to arrive at this latest settlement? I note that Burnley is to endure a further budget spending cut of 4.8%, while the more affluent areas of South Ribble and Uttlesford are to enjoy budget increases. So, while Burnley will have its budget cut by 4.8%, Uttlesford will have its budget increased by 6.4%. I have no problem with the people of Uttlesford, but I do with the lack of fairness.
	Did those councils have to go through a lengthy process of targets and assessments to access that increase? Of course not. A word in the Prime Minister’s ear, it seems, and the budgets are increased. What message does that send to the people in Burnley? Has the Minister stopped for one minute to think what the impact of the cuts will be in Burnley? Does he even care?
	The cuts will result in reduced social care services for the elderly and disabled; the closure of community centres and libraries; the loss of bus services; the loss of support for those fleeing domestic violence; and the withdrawal of services for those struggling to cope with autism. I could go on, but it is clear that the most vulnerable will carry the heaviest burden, while those with the broadest shoulders are given a bonus.
	Burnley has been cheated, and I believe that these further unfair cuts will confirm to the people of Burnley and Padiham that this Conservative Government will always prioritise the needs of the richest at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable. If the Minister were to change his mind and reconsider—

Natascha Engel: Order.

Kevin Foster: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper). Perhaps this debate has given us a chance to look forward to the future, given that the Lib Dems have left the building, but it has also given us an opportunity to look back to the past. Just over a year ago, Labour had been complaining for nearly five years about various local government settlements. An election was coming and Labour Members were challenged: “What extra would you do?” Their answer was, “Nothing.” It is interesting to compare their rhetoric today with the reality.
	A four-year local government funding settlement is welcome. I used to work in local government and it made no sense to find out in December what we would have to spend from April and to then base it on a budget that was set at the back end of February. Whatever anyone’s view of the overall settlement, it makes eminent sense for councils to be able to plan in a similar way to Governments.
	I represent one of the few totally urban constituencies to the west of Bristol, but do I object to the recognition given to the challenges that our neighbouring county faces in delivering services? For all the fury and rhetoric we have heard about Conservative areas being favoured, it is worth noting that Exeter, the one Labour constituency west of Bristol, falls under Devon County Council, which is going to benefit. [Interruption.] Judging from what we have just heard, it seems as if Labour is working to ensure that it has no MPs west of Bristol after the next general election.
	Issues affecting coastal communities are well worth looking at. In my area, we are a mixture—in some ways urban and in some ways rural—but we certainly have big social challenges and problems surrounding an ageing population. In one ward in my constituency, 9% of the population is aged over 85, and it will soon be 10%. Whatever anyone says, that makes for a real challenge.
	When it comes specifically to Torbay, some lessons can be learned by other councils from its approach to the challenges presented by asking the LGA to come and work on a peer review. This confirmed the council’s viability and suggested that it needed to develop its own vision for the future. I could suggest some areas on which it might want to review its spending—subsidising the local conference centre, for example—but at the end of the day, a positive picture has been presented of how a council that wants to grapple with the issues and wants to put forward a vision can build towards the future, while facing some of the biggest demographic challenges with childcare at one end and elderly social care at the other.
	I welcome aspects of the settlement. I think it is fair settlement overall—one that does not denude my area when it comes to assisting other areas. With greater devolution and more areas working together—and particularly with Devon, Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay looking to work together—it is wrong to present this false idea of little islands all working on their own that we have heard from Labour Members. That is absolute nonsense.
	There are positive aspects, but yes, there are still challenges. We have heard some false anger from Opposition Members, when Labour did not pledge any extra funding in this area and argued during the election campaign that it did not even want to match our pledges on the NHS.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: rose—

Kevin Foster: I happily give way, as I would like to have another minute.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: There is nothing false about the issues we are raising this afternoon. We are simply asking for a fairer settlement for local government that takes account of levels of disadvantage and levels of need, and for the needs of rural areas such as Durham, as well as rural areas elsewhere, to be acknowledged.

Kevin Foster: There may be nothing false about the issues, but it is somewhat false to come into this Chamber and complain about reductions in local government funding, when Labour Members had an opportunity to change the situation in their manifesto but failed to do so.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend may want to reflect on the fact that the reductions in Government grant and Government spending power over this Parliament to the original settlement in Durham amounted to 19.6%, yet rural areas were seeing reductions of 30%-plus. That is why Durham did not receive transitional relief—because it was not among the councils that were suffering the most. It is a simple concept, but Labour Members have misrepresented it—and yet again they should be ashamed of themselves.

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing his usual laser-like precision to the debate. It is interesting to reflect on some things, and I expect some council leaders will be reflecting on the old floors and ceilings that used to exist in local government funding as a means of altering the assessments.
	I therefore find some of the fury we have heard this afternoon to be somewhat unconvincing and fairly fake, given the absence of proposals for any extra funding. When the Government are being attacked and the Secretary of State offers to intervene, the refusal to accept it just about says it all.
	I am pleased about aspects such as the coastal community fund and some of the other funding and support that is coming in. I am most pleased to see a Government who are prepared to let councils get on with their work and reward those that deliver economic regeneration, as well as a Government who are delivering an economy that will provide benefits to local people. Ultimately, this is a Government with the vision to take the country forward rather than a vision for attacks and a lot of hot air. When it comes down to it, the Chancellor put up a manifesto, put up a commitment and said where it was going to be paid from—yet nothing came forward from Labour.

Stephen Twigg: Let me tell the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) that this is an issue about distribution and the unfairness of the distribution of these cuts. Some parts of the country that have the greatest social and economic need, such as Liverpool, are facing the biggest cuts yet again. That is what Labour Members are genuinely very angry about, reflecting the anger in the communities we represent.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) has already spoken about the challenges that we face in Liverpool. I join her in paying tribute to the mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, who has done a fantastic job in leading Liverpool over the last six years. Where did he start? He started with efficiencies. Efficiencies could be made, and he made them. Then he turned to innovation. He made a city deal with the Government that enabled him to rebuild or refurbish 12 schools that had lost out when the Government cancelled Building Schools for the Future. He took the lead, working with other council leaders in Merseyside, in securing city region devolution.
	It is not a question of a choice between efficiency and innovation on the one hand and cuts on the other. Liverpool is facing up to the challenges, but even with efficiencies and innovation, its funding from central Government has been cut by 58%. That is simply not tenable. It is simply not possible to balance the books without harming front-line services.
	That brings me to the £300 million of Government transitional support. Conservative Members have made legitimate points about rural payments. Rural poverty is undoubtedly a real issue, as is an ageing population, but if that is what the transitional money is about, why on earth is Surrey the biggest beneficiary of the additional money? It is not going to the poorest rural areas. Despite that 58% cut in central Government funding, Liverpool will not receive a penny, while Surrey will receive a substantial amount.
	Let us have a fair system of funding. I do not want to talk about “urban versus rural”, because this should be about need and deprivation. Yes, there is deprivation in rural areas, but there is also considerable deprivation in constituencies like mine. I want to ensure that there is fairness and justice in the treatment of different types of authority, but hitting a council like Liverpool with a 58% cut and then providing no transitional support does not strike me as reasonable.

Graham Stuart: According to the figures that I have seen, the average cuts in Government-funded spending power in this Parliament will be 19% in metropolitan areas and 30% in rural areas, and the figure for Liverpool is just over 15%. Where did the hon. Gentleman find his figure of 58%?

Stephen Twigg: I am talking about the actual reductions in Liverpool’s actual funding from central Government. However, the hon. Gentleman has helped me by bringing me to my next point, which other Members have already made today.
	In areas with greater social and economic needs and higher levels of poverty, such as my constituency, the council tax base is such that allowing local authorities to increase council tax simply does not have the impact that it has in Surrey and some of the wealthier London boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) spoke about social care. The increase in council tax that Liverpool has been allowed will enable us to raise £2.7 million. That is better than nothing, but the city’s social care budget has been reduced by £90 million since 2010. We can raise £2.7 million, but the gap is still £90 million.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) made the important point that, while we must take account of demographics and the number of older people in each area, we must also take account of ability to pay. One Member mentioned the number of people aged over 85 in one of his constituency wards. Clearly that brings pressures, but life expectancy in poorer parts of the country is such that not many people live until they are 85. Those are the kind of pressures caused by an ageing population that are faced in areas of high poverty, and they are different from those that are faced in other parts of the country.
	I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to think again, and, in particular, to take up the excellent suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West and make the better care fund money available immediately. That could at least help us with what is an emerging social care crisis. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, it is a human crisis not just in terms of the provision of social care, but in terms of the additional pressure that is placed on our health service.
	I am hopeful that devolution for the Liverpool city region will bring many benefits, but those benefits are more than cancelled out by the scale of the cuts, which are simply unfair because they hit the poorest parts of the country—constituencies like mine—much harder than the rest.

Kevin Hollinrake: I warmly welcome this statement today from the Secretary of State. My local authority, North Yorkshire County Council, will receive £15 million in transitional funding over the next two years, and my district authorities will receive £1.4 million. We hear cries of “Tory plot” from the Opposition, but my local authority was facing a 37% reduction in its funding, compared with an average of 20% for metropolitan authorities. What kind of Tory plot is that? This is about fairness.

John Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend also welcome the news that Labour-run Carlisle and Labour-run Cumbria are also receiving some transitional relief?

Kevin Hollinrake: I do welcome that news.
	This funding is targeted at the locations with the biggest falls. Opposition Members need to understand the profound feeling of unfairness that exists in my community, not just about funding for rural services but about the way in which our schools and healthcare are funded. How would they explain to an elderly constituent of mine in need of adult social care why she should get less funding than somebody in an urban area when she pays more in council tax? Why is that right? The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) mentioned disadvantage, but a band D council taxpayer in my area pays £1,472 a year, which is £200 more than someone in his constituency.
	These are deep cuts for the people we need to protect in our communities, whether they affect our libraries, our bus services, our post offices or those in our voluntary sector who do such fine work but who rely on central moneys to pay for the car schemes, the home visits, the day care and the relief care. I therefore welcome the fair funding review that the Secretary of State has announced. We just want fairness. We do not want a better deal than urban areas; we just want a fair deal, and whatever deal is arrived at needs to be baked into the system.
	Historically, underfunding by successive Governments has led to our paying more in council tax and to our homes being more expensive to buy or to rent and more expensive to heat. Among the elderly population in my constituency, the numbers are rising three times faster than those in metropolitan areas, and the cost of providing services to those people is much more expensive. The Government recognised that in 2013-14, but we only got 25% of the funding that we were due, owing to damping.
	What we need is a simple, transparent system that recognises need. Whatever that system might be, if it is fair Conservative Members will sign up to it without question. None of us is complaining about the size of the cake; we just want a fair distribution. We realise that we need to make cuts. Every time we have one of these debates, Opposition Members refuse to say where they would make such cuts. They are deficit deniers. We need to make cuts in our area. Our local authorities need to become more efficient.
	In my area, we have eight separate local authorities. That cannot be right at a time when we are having to make deep cuts, and we need to look for efficiencies. That cannot be an efficient way to run local government. Local authorities have a part to play in this, and we have a chance to reorganise as part of the devolution revolution. We have a complex system with five clinical commissioning groups, five health trusts, eight local authorities and a huge number of voluntary organisations. If we are to make the best of the money available and balance the books, local government will of course have to play its part if we are to become more efficient. We need to bring together all our services, such as health, social care, housing and education, to ensure that they are interconnected and that they work more effectively without duplication, complexity or bureaucracy. This settlement gives us the breathing space to develop a new fairer funding formula—a simple, fair, future-proof and rural-proof formula—and I am very happy to support the motion.

Andrew Gwynne: It is pleasure to contribute to this debate. First, I wish to pay tribute to all local councillors, of all political parties and none, for the work that they do in the world of local government, making sure that local services are provided to the people we represent in Parliament. They do an incredible job in difficult circumstances. I say that having been a councillor on Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council for 12 years. My wife has been a Tameside councillor for 16 years, and I know the very difficult decisions she and her colleagues are having to make at the moment.
	My constituency is served by two borough councils. They are very different in their socioeconomic and demographic, and political make-ups, but both are having to deal with tough—although different—spending decisions. Stockport contains the two Reddish wards in my constituency. Tameside would love to have Stockport’s settlement and its council tax base. Nevertheless, the cuts are biting hard in Stockport and I wish to make a few comments on behalf of the borough council. It says it is:
	“Surprised at extent to which council tax growth is assumed in the government’s figures which…fail to acknowledge the spending pressures arising from government induced changes (e.g national living wage, NI increases and apprenticeship levy).”
	It would be good if the Minister could respond to some of those points. Although Stockport Council welcomes
	“certain aspects of the settlement, insofar as it is not as bad as it might have been”
	it is
	“under no illusions as to the scale of the financial challenges that face the Council”.
	It says that it will have to
	“take full advantage of the newly granted flexibility to increase council tax.”
	I wish to make the point again that Tameside’s council has a £16 million social care deficit this year. It is now restricted to providing just critical and substantial care, which is statutory. That means the council still has to find the money to close that £16 million gap. Given that social care amounts to 60% of the council’s overall budget yet it serves only 4% of the residents of the borough, that money has to be found from the services everybody else takes for granted. I do not wish to repeat many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), but Tameside’s council is in a pretty similar position, in that its grounds maintenance, parks, road repairs and street cleaning are what is being literally—

Barbara Keeley: Today, I have been downstairs to meet people from the Malnutrition Task Force, which is doing some brilliant work in Salford. We have more than 2,000 cases of malnutrition—we are talking about people over 65 here. This sort of thing is developing now. Cynical comments are made by Conservative Members about the real concern Labour Members have. We did not used to need a malnutrition taskforce, and 193 out of 2,000 cases of malnourished older people were found in Salford. I know that Tameside has now launched a food bank to deal with this issue.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Of course these cuts to local government budgets must also be set alongside the £200 million in-year reduction to the public health budget, which of course local government controls—it is a point she makes very well.
	In areas such as Darlington and Tameside, local residents are not going to receive the basic services they expect to receive because the social care gap has to be filled by the general fund. I am glad the Secretary of State is back in his place, because he keeps telling Tameside Members to speak to the leader of Trafford Council. I tell him that Tameside would love to have Trafford Council’s council tax base. Band D properties in Trafford bring in £84.9 million of income to Trafford, whereas the same band in Tameside brings in £74.3 million. That is because Trafford has many more band D properties, and it also has many more in bands E, F and G. That is the real unfairness.
	In my closing few seconds, I will touch briefly on the Better Care Fund, which is of course backloaded. We need that money today, because the crisis in social care is here, it is now and it is literally killing the council financially. I say to the Secretary of State that it is all very well giving money through the Better Care Fund, but the council is losing a similar amount from the new homes bonus. We need a fairer settlement for the metropolitan areas, and a needs-based assessment, because Tameside and Stockport are being clobbered.

Simon Hoare: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). I concur with him and share his thanks to councillors and council officers, of all politics and none, for the work that they do, day in, day out, on behalf of their communities across the country.
	To listen to Opposition Members, one would have thought that the settlements for their areas had been stripped away in order to adjust ours. Had that been the case, I would have shared their anger, but it is not the case. No draft settlement that was announced in December has been driven downwards. The Department and the Treasury, to whom thanks must be due, have found additional money. I find myself asking this question, because I am not convinced by the synthetic froth of anger that we are hearing from Opposition Members. Where were they—with the honourable exception of the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman)—for the debate on the local government settlement just a few weeks ago? They were not here. They thought that they had got away scot-free, and that our areas were getting the clobbering. They have suddenly woken up and taken an interest in this situation.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right that it is a synthetic froth. Let us take Tameside and Trafford. In the original settlement, Trafford was facing a 28% reduction in Government-funded spending power, against 19% in Tameside. Surrey was facing a 54% cut—I would never normally speak up for Surrey—so it is no wonder that it got some transitional relief.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend is right. Frankly, the Opposition party has been rumbled on this. Let us not kid ourselves, this remains, even after the welcome announcement made by the Minister on Monday, a tough settlement. It leaves an unfair and unsustainable gap between funding for rural and urban areas. That continues. It has just been made a little less tough. There is no golden goose being given to Tory local government.

Liam Byrne: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take back the point about synthetic rage. If other hon. Members had a hospital such as the one in my constituency, which is £54 million in deficit, and where delayed discharges are up 1,000% in a year because of public funding cuts, they would have a responsibility to stand up and say, “Think carefully about how you distribute money.” If they are representing a city such as Birmingham where there is another £92 million to come out of social care on top of the crisis that is already there, then, collectively as a country, we have a problem. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take back his comment and recognise that there are genuine questions about the distribution mechanisms being put forward by the Secretary of State.

Simon Hoare: If Birmingham City Council is funding its local hospital, it might explain some of its problems. That is not a responsibility of the city council. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to stand and ask Government Members to retract comments when the note he left in the Treasury continues to hang like an albatross around his and his party’s neck.

Liam Byrne: On that point—

Simon Hoare: I will not give way to him.

Liam Byrne: It is because he is frit.

Simon Hoare: No. Of the right hon. Gentleman, I am never frit. Of course I will give way.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being courteous and collegiate in giving way. He will also remember that I left a Budget that was going to halve the deficit over the course of the Parliament, which his Chancellor has still failed to achieve.

Simon Hoare: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously been to Specsavers—he has the rose-tinted glasses and he is looking through a completely different Labour history.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is an unseemly tenor now to the debate. I urge the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) to return to the path of virtue, which he ordinarily occupies, in terms of the conduct of debate. I remind the House that we are discussing not budgets, but Local Government Finance (England).

Simon Hoare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take that Lenten reprimand as it was intended.
	The Labour Opposition are judging this Government by their standards. The formula that they put in place when they were in government was patently slewed. It was gerrymandering on a massive scale. That is why, in my closing remarks, I turn to the future. The announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on Monday makes a tough settlement for local government across the piece just a little less tough. It provides an opportunity and a breathing space, particularly for counties such as Dorset, which was going to have revenue support grant for only two years—Dorset County Council, that is—rather than for four. That is where the transitional relief has had to kick in, and the rural services delivery grant has also come in to help. But that help is temporary, so I will be pressing, as I am sure will some of my hon. Friends—no doubt Opposition Members will do so too—for an efficient and speedy review and formulation of the new methodologies to be deployed in calculating what our local authorities need. I think the Ministers get that point.
	In broad terms, the motions that we are debating are to be supported. There is additional help for my rural areas, which I welcome. The Secretary of State listened to my call for the £5 de minimis and has put that in. Likewise with regard to the localisation of planning fees. In closing, I repeat my call in an earlier intervention for town councils to work fully in concert with district councils. They should be exempt from having their precepts capped. That will allow them to forge a deeper relationship with senior tiers of local government, instead of the year-on-year question of whether they would be capped or not. I welcome the settlement and I will join the Government in the Lobby tonight to support it. Rural communities throughout the country, which have suffered for too long under a faulty Labour manifesto, are now getting—

Mr Speaker: Order.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: There are three Labour Members still seeking to catch my eye, but realistically we ought to begin the winding-up speeches no later than 6.50. Whether Members wish to share, I leave to them. There is a time limit of four minutes, but it is up to them to cope with it.

Jack Dromey: Respecting that discipline, I shall be brief. Birmingham is a great city—the city of Chamberlain, the birthplace of municipal governance, the birthplace of municipal enterprise, a city with great potential, and a dynamic city—but it is a city of high need. My constituency may be rich in talent, but it is one of the poorest in the country. If someone gets on the train at the new Grand Central station and gets off at Erdington or Gravelly Hill, they are likely to live seven years less than if they continue on the train to Sutton Coldfield.
	The city is now suffering the biggest cuts in local government history—£500 million already, another £250 million at the next stages, £90 million this year—and the city is the victim of grotesque unfairness. MPs of all political parties met the Secretary of State and we put a powerful case for fair funding and for transitional funding. We welcomed the fact that ultimately the Government want to move to a new fair funding formula, but what happens in the next three to four years is crucial.
	We put a strong case, the Government listened, the Government moved, then they gave Birmingham not one penny, yet they were able to shell out for Wokingham, Surrey, Cheshire East, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Kent and Worcestershire. It is fundamentally wrong. It cannot be right that areas of high need are treated in that way at a time when the Government say they want to move to a new needs-based formula. It cannot be right.
	Let me conclude, so that my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Anna Turley) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) may speak. The Government should recognise the consequences of their actions. School crossing patrols, which are vital to the safety of kids going to and from school, are at risk. Home-Start in my constituency, which has given outstanding support to parents who are struggling in their lives and struggling to bring up their kids, is at risk. In a city where 100,000 people are in need of social care, many of those people—the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable—will not now get the care they should be entitled to in a civilised society. What the Government have done is fundamentally wrong: they have ignored need and looked after their own, and that is something that no Government should ever do.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman’s middle name is clearly Share.

Anna Turley: As everyone in the House will be aware, the liquidation of Sahaviriya Steel Industries and the closure of Redcar steelworks last September led to more than 3,000 immediate job losses. The local authority, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, serves a population of 135,000 people. Those job losses would be the equivalent in Greater London of the overnight loss of 176,000 jobs—imagine the headline on the front of the
	Evening Standard
	. That is what my local area is dealing with.
	Imagine now, on top of that, the loss to the council of £10 million in business rates from SSI, plus the loss to council tax income as a result of people being out of work, as well as the knock-on demand for services from those out of work and the money lost more broadly to the local economy.
	Add to that the fact that less than £5 per head is spent on transport in our region, compared with £2,600 per head in London. Add to that the fact that unemployment was already more than double the national average, and that was before the steelworks closed. Add to that the fact that our demographics show we have a higher than average proportion of elderly people and we have desperately deprived rural areas in Cleveland, which many Government Members have not taken into account in the debate. Add to that the fact that a third of men and half of women are on less than a living wage. Add to that the fact that the Tees valley has the second highest number of wards anywhere in the country in the index of multiple deprivation. That is what we are dealing with.
	Our local authority of Redcar and Cleveland has lost £56.4 million in funding since the Prime Minister came to office—more than the funding package we got to retrain SSI workers. That is what we have lost, and now the Government intend to take a further £7.5 million from us—a total loss of £89 million over 10 years. That is not sustainable.
	We are trying to get back on our feet. We are trying to recover. Why are the Government holding us back? This is a heinous settlement from a shameless, arrogant and downright cruel Government, and I urge them to think again.

Marie Rimmer: I speak on behalf of the residents of St Helens South and Whiston. My constituency extends over two small metropolitan boroughs—Knowsley and St Helens. I have three wards in Knowsley, which is one of the top three most deprived boroughs in the country, and the seventh-highest in terms of income deprivation. Knowsley has already suffered £98 million of cuts. Last year, it put £7 million into the social care budget for elderly people—£7 million in reserves that is not there this year, so Knowsley will have to find the funds to fill the gap or cut those services.
	I declare an interest: I am still a St Helens councillor. St Helens suffered £68 million of cuts. I can say more on that, because I know more of the detail. A 2% precept on council tax will raise £1.2 million, but there is £1.8 million in demand for care services, with £1 million in demand for older people’s services and £800,000 in demand from other people receiving social care. The living wage will increase the spend by £1.8 million. With only £1.2 million being raised, we already have a gap of £2.4 million, and that is without the cut coming in this year’s budget. We have received nothing for the transition.
	I was amazed at the lack of understanding of how health and social care work together. I am proud that public health, primary care, secondary care, the clinical commissioning group and the hospitals all work together in St Helens. This weekend, I spent time in the hospital with some friends. A lady’s partner was going to have to leave the hospital, but sadly could not go home, so people were trying to persuade her that her partner would need to go into a home, and I took her to a home. The hospital serves five or six boroughs, all of which are suffering from cuts in social care. That means that people are unable to get the care that they need and would have had previously. They are wondering who is going to look after them, particularly those living alone. Who will go in to help them in between the social care? Looking at children’s services, we are putting children out for adoption much more quickly than we were, but the cost of providing foster care is enormous.
	I urge the Minister at least to look to bringing forward the better care fund. I ask him to look at the ability to raise funds, how little council tax raises, and needs and deprivation. The elderly population—65-year-olds, over-75s and over-85s—is growing by 14% each year. I ask him please to take everything into account.

Liz McInnes: I will be very brief because I want to hear from the Minister, as we do need answers to the questions that have been asked in this extremely lively and robust debate. The House is clearly extremely split over this settlement, with discontent, concern and dissatisfaction among Labour Members that needs to be listened to. It does not need, and does not deserve, to be met with denial, derision and dismissal, as in the case of so many Conservative Members, I am afraid.
	The Secretary of State says that he will conduct a needs-based formula review, and that cannot come soon enough. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) about the inequality created by the 2% precept, which raises money for those areas with the highest council tax base. That inequality has to be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) said that his area is suffering from 4.9% cuts as against the England average of 2.8%. Blackpool, an area of extreme deprivation, gets no transitional relief at all. He highlighted the failure of the 2% council tax precept to adequately fund adult social care—a theme that has run through the debate. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), pointed to the predicted council tax hike of 20% by 2020. This Government have broken their promise to the people of England to reduce council tax over the course of the Parliament.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) welcomed the four-year settlement to enable our councils to plan. Indeed, I think all Labour Members welcome that. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister reminds me, Conservative Members actually voted against it. My hon. Friends also welcome the money for social care, but have pointed out that it does not meet the vast discrepancy in the funding that is needed to provide social care for our elderly and vulnerable, given the paltry amount that the 2% precept will raise. It is disappointing that Conservative Members do not understand the link between delayed discharges from hospitals and the inadequacy of social care. This is a huge social problem, and the Government need to face up to it. They need to come out of denial and do something about the funding of social care.
	Too many of my hon. Friends spoke for me to be able to credit them all, but I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for their eloquent explanations of the chronic underfunding of adult social care and the distress that it is already causing to the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable.
	I will close with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who pointed out that Birmingham gets “not one penny” in transitional funding, yet Surrey—not an area of high deprivation—gets £24 million. Areas of high need cannot be treated in this way. The Government need to recognise the consequences of their actions.

Marcus Jones: I thank hon. Members for this passionate debate, which it is my pleasure to close. These are important times for local government. The devolution of power and resources from Whitehall is gathering momentum. Public services need to find innovative ways to save money and support services for local people.
	I take the opportunity to thank local government for its hard work and dedication across the country over the past five years. More savings need to be made as we finish the job of eliminating the largest deficit in our post-war history. The finance settlement that we have discussed today will help councils to continue their excellent work. We have consulted carefully, and I am grateful to hon. Members—particularly Government Members—for bringing their constituents’ views to us during the consultation.
	I want to cover some of the points that hon. Members have raised. The opening salvo from the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) was nothing more than scaremongering and the politics of fear. There was certainly a lot of heat, but there was not much light. He showed no contrition whatsoever for the deficit that the previous Labour Government left behind, which we have had to deal with. He made no mention of the fact that, only months ago, the Labour party went into a general election saying that it would cut funding to local government. He might not know his Kent from his Surrey, but he is the former leader of Lambeth Council, so I think we should give him some credit for his knowledge of local government. I am sure he will be keen to know that Lambeth Council has supported the idea of transitional measures:
	“Transitional measures are usually employed where a new distribution methodology is introduced to ensure significant shifts are not experienced one way or the other. The Council believes this is sensible on the basis that the control totals are adjusted such that those benefitting are not adversely affected.”
	No council has been adversely affected as a consequence of our response to the provisional settlement, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to deny that. He gave Government Members a considerable lecture about council tax, which I found absolutely astounding. During the last five years, council tax has been reduced by 11%, on average. He did not mention the fact that while the Labour party was in government, council tax doubled.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) made strong representations during the process on behalf of his constituents. I hope that he was reassured by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is certainly listening to the challenges faced by the island that he represents.
	The Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), made a sensible contribution. He welcomed the move to localism and local funding for local services. He asked when details of the distribution of the better care fund would be made available. I reassure him that there will be a response to the consultation on the better care fund very soon, and we will be able to give further details.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) welcomed devolution, the transitional arrangements and the increase in the rural services delivery grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) used his considerable experience of local government and as a Minister to support the proposal. He made a sensible and excellent point about entrenching efficiency. That is absolutely achievable now that we are offering councils the ability to take a four-year budget if they so wish.
	I want to mention the speech by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), who is no longer in his place. He made some appalling comments about my noble Friend Baroness Williams. I can assure hon. Members that the transitional grant is based purely on supporting areas that have encountered the largest reduction in the revenue support grant. The approach he took towards my noble Friend Baroness Williams was very sad and not becoming of him.

Barbara Keeley: Will the Minister give way?

Marcus Jones: I will not give way, because I do not have the time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) has been an effective advocate for rural areas, as he was again today. I am glad that he has welcomed the Government’s response to the consultation.
	The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) made a very strong speech, but I was surprised because if she feels so strongly why did she not respond to the consultation? If she had done so or if she had looked at the figures closely, she would have seen that Darlington has actually benefited from the way in which the settlement has been prepared.

Jenny Chapman: Will the Minister give way?

Marcus Jones: No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady will see that that is the case if she looks properly at the figures.
	The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) absolutely knocked the nail on the head in 2010, when he said, “There is no money.” From his speech today, he seems to have absolutely forgotten that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) made another sensible contribution to this debate. He talked about the opportunity for councils to raise new council tax and business rates for their local community. Such councils are sensible and are doing the right thing on behalf of their local residents.
	It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), who talked about his council officers welcoming the improved rural services delivery grant. I agree with him that it is a shame no Liberal Democrats were in the Chamber for this debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) reminded me of Elvis when he said that the Lib Dems had left the building. It does not seem that the handful of them now left are representing their constituents very well.
	Lancashire is a great county. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) talked at length about the negatives but did not mention that Lancashire is actually benefiting from the transitional arrangements that this Government have put in place. It will be very interesting to see whether she votes down a proposal to give more money to her county and to the services provided to her constituents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay made an excellent contribution. He was an excellent deputy council leader in Coventry. He knows his onions and he knows what he is talking about. He explained the importance, particularly in his area, of councils working together to continue to deliver high-quality services for his constituents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made a strong contribution. He pointed out the challenges of providing services in rural areas and the importance of the rural services delivery grant in his area.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made his usual colourful contribution. I am glad that he did not follow up on the offer he made to the Secretary of State on Monday, but it was much appreciated. His comments were noted. He is a doughty campaigner for his constituents, and it was good that he welcomed the council tax flexibility of £5 for district councils.
	This settlement meets the needs of the users of council services. It charts the path to the future accountability of local government. This is a time of big opportunity and expectation for reform in local government. The settlement delivers transition funding to smooth the path from central control to fully localised income: a fivefold increase in support for rural communities next year; a fundamental review of the needs-based formula to chart the path to full business rates retention; and support for social care amounting to £3.5 billion by 2020. I commend it to the House.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 315, Noes 209.

Mr Speaker: The Ayes have it in respect of the UK-wide Division. On account of a technical hitch that has just been reported to the Chair, I shall cause the result of the Division among English constituency Members to be disclosed to the House when those facts are relayed to me. On the assumption that there is no contradiction between the results, the Ayes have it. Members will be kept informed.

Mr Speaker: I can now announce the results of the Division among English Members in respect of the matter of which we have just treated. The Ayes to the right were 301; the Noes to the left were 181, so the Ayes have it. I have now confirmed what I suggested to the House a few moments ago.
	Resolved,
	That the Report on Local Government Finance (England) 2016-17 (HC 789), which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.
	More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the proceedings were interrupted (Order, 8 February).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, 8 February).

Local government Finance (England)

Resolved,
	That the Report on the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) 2016–17 (HC 790), which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.
	That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) 2016–17 (HC 791), which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That, at this day’s sitting, the motion in the name of Chris Grayling relating to the notification of arrest of members, may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and Standing Order No 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Julian Smith.)
	Question agreed to.

Notification of Arrest of Members

Therese Coffey: I beg to move,
	That Members of the House shall be under no undue restraint from being able to attend the House, and that this principle has been, and continues to be, encompassed in the privileges of the House claimed at the beginning of each Parliament;
	That this House accordingly:
	(1) endorses the Second Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 2015-16, Notification of the arrest of Members, HC 649;
	(2) directs the Clerk of the House and the Speaker to follow the protocol on notification of arrest of Members set out in Annex 2 to that Report; and
	(3) directs each chief officer of police in the United Kingdom, immediately upon the arrest of any Member by the police force under that officer’s command, to notify the Clerk of the House in accordance with the provisions of that protocol.
	The motion stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). I do not intend to detain the House for long. Although I would describe myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) as conviction politicians, I want the record to show that the motion before the House results from the publication of the report from the Procedure Committee on 15 December on the notification of arrest of hon. Members.
	The report followed detailed consideration by the Procedure Committee, at the request of Mr Speaker, and the House is being asked to endorse that report and the protocol contained in it. A word of caution to hon. Members: the Government are facilitating the discussion and the decision of the House on this matter, but it is for the House to decide, and I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee to set out the proposals in the report and to answer any queries and issues that have arisen since publication. I thank the members of the Committee for their diligent efforts, and I know that my hon. Friend the Chair is highly respected and will do his best to help hon. Members in this debate and beyond. As such, I present the motion to the House.

Charles Walker: In the previous Parliament, the Procedure Committee was asked to look into the existing protocols around the arrest of Members of Parliament. We started preliminary inquiries in early 2015, and this work laid the foundation for the inquiry we launched shortly after the general election.
	The findings of the inquiry were unanimously endorsed by the Committee, which reported to the House in December. I know that our moderate and proportionate recommendations relating to the arrest of Members have created a great deal of faux sound and fury in various quarters. On Monday morning, I had to smile at the assertion by Kevin O’Sullivan, a Mirror journalist, on Sky Television, that
	“they should very much be named because everyone else is… that’s always been the system. Once you are arrested, you can be named”.
	That was an enlightening observation for two reasons: first, because it was completely wrong, and secondly and more interestingly, because it gave a revealing insight into the conduct of too many national newsrooms and their own morality when it comes to obtaining information from public officials.
	I accept that the media have a job to do, and that includes making our lives difficult, so my greatest disappointment in the reporting on the Committee’s proposals is reserved for Sir Alistair Graham, the former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. From his pejorative comments about our report, it is clear either that he has not read it or, if he has read it, that he has no appreciation of, or regard for, the law. I know that Sir Alistair’s time in the chair from 2004 to 2007 was not a happy one. During his three years in office, he felt deeply aggrieved that at no stage did the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, agree to his repeated requests for a meeting. I accept that the then PM was perhaps churlish in his refusal to meet him, but I gently ask Sir Alistair to pursue his grievance with the former Prime Minister, as opposed to taking his frustrations out on the House of Commons, which had no hand in his disappointment. On a personal note, it is sad to see a distinguished former public servant and knight of the realm allowing himself to be turned into little more than a misinformed talking head.
	Let me be absolutely clear: the Procedure Committee is not asking for Members of Parliament to receive special treatment in the eyes of the law. Such a request, if made, would be alien to the values of our Committee and to the wishes of our constituents. All of us on the Committee believe that the law should be applied equally to all citizens of the United Kingdom, but presently that is not the case in this House, where, in matters of policing and public order, the point of public notification occurs not at the point of charge, as is the case with our constituents, but at the point of arrest.
	That process of notification puts the police and the House at odds with the Data Protection Act and, potentially, article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Regardless of how people feel about the application of data protection and ECHR laws, that exposes both this House and the police to legal challenge by a named Member of Parliament.

Stewart Jackson: Is it not the truth that this practice is an historical anachronism arising from the period of the titanic struggle between the monarchy and the legislature, when, at a time when the King would arbitrarily arrest Members of Parliament, it was quite proper for Parliament to be so advised of that happening? It has no place in a modern Parliament and a modern democracy.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I shall now go on to answer.
	In brief, the House has five choices. Option 1, as set out in our report, is to ensure that the law of the land is applied equally to Members of Parliament as it is to our constituents. Option 2 is for the House to retain the status quo, thereby knowingly putting itself and the police on the wrong side of the law. Option 3 is for the Home Secretary to amend schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to specifically exempt Members of Parliament from its universal protections, which in itself would create a precedent for a two-tier system tier of justice—the very thing our constituents do not want.
	Option 4 is to amend primary legislation, so that the names of all suspects are released by the police at the point of arrest, not the point of charge. Of course, that would be welcomed by the press, as it would aid it in its pursuit of celebrities and other people of interest, but it would be devastating for those tens of thousands of people who are arrested but never charged with any crime.
	Option 5 is for the House to abandon privilege in respect of our parliamentary duties in the hope that no future despot would want to detain us from them on trumped-up political charges. Of course, if we follow that route, tonight’s entire debate would be a dead letter.

Jim Shannon: When the Anglo-Irish agreement was signed by Margaret Thatcher in 1985, Unionists were enraged because it totally ignored them. Unionists at all levels, including then Members of this House—this was before my time—were involved in a campaign of civil disobedience and a then MP was arrested in that campaign. Was any consideration given to those examples of civil disobedience?

Charles Walker: When people engage in civil disobedience, they tend to want to have it reported, so that would not be covered. They would be charged, and of course, at the point of charge, it becomes public information. Of the people who took part in those protests, I think that 10 individuals—on 13 separate occasions—were imprisoned.
	Of the five options I have outlined, the Procedure Committee opted for option 1, as we generally think it is a good idea for the laws of the land to be obeyed by the Parliament that creates them. Indeed, that is the minimum expectation that our constituents have of us, so I am amazed that some colleagues are tying themselves up in knots about this modest proposal.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In the unlikely circumstance that a Government less benign than the current one were to have a Member arrested on a trumped-up charge, would that Member have the right to insist that Mr Speaker brought it to the attention of the House?

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That Member would have the right, but if it were judged to be a matter of privilege, the Clerk would advise the Speaker and the arrest would be placed in the public domain. That is what would happen.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful for a second go. Is my hon. Friend saying that if the House has a chance to ascertain whether it is a breach of privilege, the Member concerned will also have the right to insist on it being made public by Mr Speaker?

Charles Walker: All Members, if arrested, will continue to have the right to have their names made public if that is what they choose to do, but it will not be automatic. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.
	If adopted, the proposed changes will mean that Members of Parliament subject to arrest will not automatically have details of that arrest published by the House. This change gives them only the same rights to privacy as are enjoyed by any other citizen—not enhanced rights, but equal rights. In accordance with standard police practice and privacy laws, the names of arrested Members will not be put into the public domain by the House unless the Member consents. The exception will be in cases where you, Mr Speaker, have been advised by the Clerk of the House that a Member has been detained for reasons connected to his or her role as a Member of Parliament. A recent example was the arrest of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) when his parliamentary office and home office were raided by the police in 2008.
	The Committee’s report sets out the ambition that the arrest of a Member of Parliament still be notified to the Police Chief Superintendent of this House within 24 hours. However, we recognise that in circumstances where there is a live investigation, the police will not be in a position always to meet this ambition. In those circumstances, we hope that the details of an arrest will be provided as soon as operationally possible. For the avoidance of all doubt, should an arrested Member subsequently be charged with an offence, it is expected that in line with existing police practice, details of the name and charge would be published by the police force responsible at the time of charge.
	In conclusion, the new arrangements detailed in the Committee’s report and outlined here this evening do not, of course, affect the duties of police forces to notify relevant authorities of safeguarding risks under the common law police disclosure scheme, which was introduced in August 2015.

Melanie Onn: No Member of this House or the other place is above the law—nor should they ever consider themselves to be. The reach of the law extends within the House, and Parliament would not seek to interfere with due process of a criminal investigation. Similarly, as the law applies to us all equally, so does the right to privacy.
	Given that we are public servants, it is right that notification to the House would still take place in respect of matters such as imprisonment or remanding in custody; sentence of imprisonment; conviction of illegal or corrupt practice at a parliamentary election; and conviction of an offence relating to an MP’s expenses.
	I would, however, like to ask about the practicality of the proposed measures, and I shall direct my questions to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I believe that to be the correct process. Does the Committee believe that the event of a Member of Parliament being arrested will be kept from the public domain as a direct result of these procedural changes? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the modern era of social media, it is increasingly likely that such information would quickly reach the public domain?
	On the effect of social media, rumours very often take on a life of their own and become widely accepted truth before the interested party has a chance to respond.
	Does the hon. Gentleman consider that, with the removal of the duty to notify of the arrest of Members to the House, that it could be more difficult for an individual to counter rumours of such arrests?
	I was interested to see that no notifications of arrest were made to the House for 30 years—from 1978 until 2008. Were no Members arrested during that time, or is there already a system available that allows the Speaker or Clerk to exercise discretion in these matters?
	Under these proposals, it is specified that Members who are arrested are not to be prevented from notifying the House of their detention. Can the hon. Gentleman say how this can be ensured?
	It is intended that police forces will be required to notify the Chief Superintendent at Parliament of the arrest of any Member within 24 hours. How will information about that new procedure be circulated to police forces, and how will it be enforceable?
	Can the hon. Gentleman provide examples of what he considers would fall within parliamentary privilege, or would be of constitutional significance, that would require the House to be automatically notified of a Member’s arrest, and can he explain how parliamentary privilege or constitutional significance would have affected the notification of arrests made in the past 10 years?
	The recommendations in the Procedure Committee’s report rely on protections enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, which I thought the Government wanted to repeal. Why are they more than happy to employ the Act to protect their own rights, while wishing to remove it from the British people?
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In due course, with the leave with the House, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee may well have the chance—and, I rather anticipate, will have the chance—to speak again. Meanwhile, I call Mr Patrick Grady.

Patrick Grady: I note that, according to the Order Paper, the debate can continue until any hour. I am surprised that my hon. Friends have decided to go to the Burns supper rather than taking this opportunity to explain their thinking on a range of matters. However, Mr Speaker, I thank you for calling me, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on his work in chairing the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member. I also acknowledge the work of the predecessor Committee, which did much of the heavy lifting. We inherited that hard work, and it has led to the report that we are discussing this evening.
	The inquiry and the report—which proposes a small but fairly important modernisation of the House’s proceedings—were instigated by you, Mr Speaker. This morning, there was a debate in Westminster Hall about other aspects of modernisation of our procedure, led by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). I hope that in due course the Committee will be able to consider some of the issues that were raised then, not least that of electronic voting.
	It is clear from the report that this reform of our procedure is overdue. I agree with what the hon. Member for Broxbourne said about, in particular, the European convention on human rights and his suggestion that Members should be given no special or differential treatment. The report seeks to strike a balance between the historic rights and privileges accorded to the House and the understood modern rights of individuals, especially the right to privacy. The procedure respects both by requiring the Clerk of the House to be notified, while requiring the details of an arrest not to be made public without good reason or without the consent of the Member involved. I note in particular provision 11, which states:
	“There will be no notification under any of these provisions without previous contact with the Member concerned or his or her legal representative.”
	The report elaborates on that thinking by giving a bit more detail, explaining, for instance, why the practice of notification should not be abandoned entirely. That is connected largely with the historic claim of the House on the attendance of Members, but the report notes that it has never been allowed to interfere with the administration of justice.
	This is a comprehensive report, which has arrived at clear conclusions. It is the work of two generations of parliamentarians, and I pay tribute again to the predecessor Committee. This Committee has reached a clear and simple consensus, and I hope that, notwithstanding some of the questions that we have just heard, the House will be able to do so as well.

Dennis Skinner: I have been listening to the debate on the telly, and I do not know what all the fuss is about. I suppose I have been on nearly every picket line that has ever existed. I have been on one today, with the hospital doctors, and there was a tremendous turnout. But I remember being on one when the second eleven of the gang of four took over TV-am. Well, it was like a gang of four. They were very big and important people. One was a Member of Parliament, who later ran into some trouble. I think he got arrested, but I am not sure.
	Anyway, I was on that picket line, and I do not remember there being any fuss and bother about the fact that a policeman came up and decided that he was going to arrest me. He put me inside—I think it was somewhere near Islington, not far from the TV-am picket line. After three hours, just as I was thinking, “I’m going to miss Prime Minister’s Question Time”, a man with all these pips on his shoulder came in and said, “Is there anything I can do for you, sir?” I said, “Yes, I’m trying to get out so that I can get to Prime Minister’s Question Time. I’m also struggling with 13 across in The Guardian crossword, but as a reader of The Sun, you probably don’t understand what I’m talking about.” So he kept me in another two hours, and I did miss Prime Minister’s Question Time.
	Fortunately, there had been a cameraman on the picket line who had his own camera and he managed to prove, in all the further and better particulars, that I had not done anything at all. I had not hit the policeman; I had not been anywhere near him. The net result was that, when they saw the film, the police had to withdraw the charge. I turned up at Islington court expecting to get a hefty fine, and God knows what else, on this trumped-up charge, and suddenly the press came rushing out and stuck all these mics in front of my nose and said, “What have you got to say, Mr Skinner? The case has been dropped!” Now that is the story of an arrest.
	I do not want anybody to get the daft impression that you cannot get arrested if you are an MP. A lot of my colleagues got arrested on picket lines in other strikes, and it is a load of nonsense when people assume that it is impossible to arrest Members of Parliament. The only charge I finished up with was a hefty bill for the barrister I had employed. He looked like one of those West Indian cricket fast bowlers, but he cost a lot of money. I was given the chance by the union concerned to have the money paid back, but as a matter of principle I said, “I’m okay, I’m a member of Parliament and I can foot the bill myself.” That is the story of an arrest.
	I have been watching on telly as all this fuss and bother have emerged. Believe me, if some policeman had wanted to arrest me on the picket line with the hospital doctors this morning, he could have done it. But of course, we were doing “Singing in the Rain” and all the rest of it. It was a wonderful experience. The hospital doctors are in good spirits, and I will tell you this is a matter of importance. The Secretary of State for Health wants to be careful what he is doing. If he thinks he can impose a settlement on those hospital doctors—[Hon. Members: “Out of order!”] Yes, but this is only one little errant move, so don’t get excited, Mr Speaker! I think I have a duty to report back. The hospital doctors are not in a mood to give in. They have a right to win this battle. That is my report from the trenches today. Thank you very much for listening.

John Mann: I hate to break the consensus, but we have been here before when it comes to House business. I recall moving a resolution—but not getting a seconder—to stop the flipping of homes, some 18 months before the expenses scandal. If I had been listened to then, some Members might not be here today because others might well have survived; I suppose that outcome was rather double-edged. The reputation of Parliament might also have been partly salvaged if that resolution had been listened to, but it was not.
	On this motion, I listened to the non-answer given to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). I have a question about the impact on the British overseas territories if this goes through. Plenty of Parliaments across the world, not least those in the Commonwealth, listen to and watch what we do, and they copy and emulate it. We are not just talking about a possibility in some future stage of less democratic times under this Government. Plenty of Members of Parliament have been arrested and disappear, and it still happens to this day. They are taken by regimes citing the law, and therefore decisions we make have to be thought through for their consequences.
	Ironically, the first name on the motion is that of the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). He is citing the human rights law here, but he is the man in Cabinet demanding we get rid of the human rights law. It seems that the rest of the country, including my constituents, can have no human rights, but we will create some extra ones tonight for Members of
	Parliament—exclusively. That is precisely what this proposal does. It says that MPs will give themselves some special rights in law that do not apply to everybody else, and that is wrong. That principle is wrong and that practice is wrong. Until the question, theoretical though it may be, is properly answered, which it has not been, this becomes a double-edged sword in law for us as well. If people wish to change the law in relation to what happens when people are arrested, they should change the law. There is plenty of time in the parliamentary agenda for people to change the law. There are plenty of opportunities for the Government to change the law. This is not the way to change it for Members of Parliament, and therefore we should oppose this proposal.

Charles Walker: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate. I think the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) missed my speech, because I think I did answer most of the questions he raised. I hope I answered the one put by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), as I tried to do so twice.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about creating another law for Members of Parliament. No, what we are doing is bringing Members of Parliament in line with the law—the law that governs our constituents. I greatly enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). He is a fantastic orator, and whatever he has to say, I always enjoy listening to it, so I thank him for being here this evening.
	Let me try to answer the shadow Deputy Leader of the House’s questions. There were quite a lot of them and I am not very good at writing very quickly. If I fail to answer any of them, she can come back in. First, I wish to draw the House’s attention to “Erskine May’s” first edition. It records the case in 1815 of a Member
	“convicted of a conspiracy”
	and
	“committed to the King’s Bench Prison.”
	He escaped custody and took refuge in the Chamber of the old House of Commons, on the Government Front Bench, where the prison “marshal” found him and took him back into custody—rearrested him. Even though the marshal had come right into the House, albeit when it was not sitting, to take the Member into custody, the committee of privileges found that no breach of privilege had occurred. This measure is not to protect us; privilege has never protected us from being arrested for criminal activities, and it is a myth to suggest otherwise.
	If a Member is arrested and chooses to tell the House of his or her arrest, or chooses to the tell the media of it, they are perfectly entitled to do that. What we are suggesting—what this report suggests and puts to the House—is that there is no automatic notification of the arrest of a Member, in line with the rights that extend to all of our constituents.
	Let me just say something about social media. We cannot govern social media, but a lot of what appears on social media is hearsay and gossip. Let us also not forget that the media in this country have been very good at extracting information illegally, through the payment of cash to public officials, and some of those public officials have gone to prison for that. Both the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Home Secretary recently wrote to the College of Policing, reiterating the fact that police officers must not under any circumstances, unless it is to do with safeguarding, release the name of an individual on arrest. Details of their age can be given, but not their name.
	Many people mistakenly believe that the point of arrest happens towards the end of an investigation. Actually, it does not. It happens very early on in an investigation. Indeed, someone could present themselves voluntarily to a police station to be arrested and then be released on bail. The Deputy Leader of the House asks where this would have made a difference in recent times. There were three arrests notified to the House between 2011 and 2014 where this would have made a difference. In reality, it probably would have made a difference in only two of the arrests, because one of the acts for which the individual was arrested was committed in public, in the precinct of this House, so it was seen and reported by many people.
	There were two colleagues—one in 2011 and one in 2014—who were arrested. Their names appeared on the front of national newspapers and they suffered huge reputational damage. In both those cases no charges were brought. It would not make a huge difference to a lot of people, but it would certainly make a difference to some people in this House.
	On circulating the procedures, there is a protocol attached to our report and that will be circulated by the Clerk of the House and those who work in his office to police constables across the country. That will happen only when—and if—this House approves the motion here this evening.
	The hon. Lady asked when privilege would have applied, and I gave an example in my speech. There was clearly the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) whose offices on the precinct of the House of Commons and at home were entered by the police. That would have been a matter of privilege, but it would not be for me to determine whether that encroached on privilege, but a matter for the Clerk, in discussion with the Speaker and the legal counsel. That is the best example.
	The hon. Lady also asked why there were no reports for 30 years—between 1978 and 2008. It was probably because this process fell into disuse—it is nothing more sinister than that. The reason that more arrests were reported goes back to what happened in 2008 when the police entered the precinct of the House of Commons without any advance notification. The Serjeant at Arms at the time was rather taken by surprise. It was a bit of a procedural disaster. An edict then went from the Speaker’s Chair, saying that we need to be notified of action. The police being diligent then started notifying the Chair of all arrests and actions, and that is where the difficulty arose.
	I have some scribbled notes here. I hope that I have answered most of the hon. Lady’s questions. There is still the ECHR question, and there has been some gentle chiding of the Leader of the House. I did say in my speech that, regardless of what we think about the ECHR—whether we like it or love it—regardless of what we think about data protection—whether we like it, love it, or tolerate it—the truth of the matter is that, as of today, they are the law of the land. As I said in my speech, we have a duty in this place to obey the law of the land. I know that some people have a great conscience and sometimes take part in demonstrations and get arrested. When they do get arrested, they want that to be in the public eye because that is part of their action. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for example, was recently arrested, but that was very much in the public eye. I hope that I have answered most of the questions put to me by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House.

Edward Leigh: It is worth emphasising this point, because we had quite an incendiary speech from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and we need to nail this argument on the head. As a member of the Procedure Committee, with its Chairman sitting next to me, I can say that no extra privilege of any sort is being given to any Member of Parliament. We are being put on exactly the same level as members of the public.

Charles Walker: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is the case. He is right—no Member of this House is above the law, but likewise no Member of this House is below the law. We have to be equal in the eyes of the law, and that is what this report tries to do.
	Question put and agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Proposed Sale of the Kneller Hall Site

Tania Mathias: I present a petition on behalf of the residents of my constituency who oppose plans by the Ministry of Defence to sell off the site of Kneller Hall, the home of the Royal Military School of Music. I am grateful to all the constituents who took the time to add their names.
	The petition reads:
	To the House of Commons,
	The petition of residents of the Twickenham constituency,
	Declares that the Ministry of Defence’s proposed sale of the Kneller Hall site should not go ahead; further that the site has played an important role in the local community over many decades; and further that the Royal Military School of Music is historically important.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to stop the sale of the Kneller Hall site.
	And the petitioners remain, etc. [P001672]

Autism Sunday Campaign

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)

Andrew Rosindell: I would like to begin by asking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pass on my thanks to Mr. Speaker for selecting this debate this evening, and to express my gratitude at having been given the opportunity to inform the House about Autism Sunday, also known as the international day of prayer for autism and Asperger’s syndrome.
	I declare an interest. I am a patron of the Romakey International Education Services charity based in my constituency. That charity provides young people with learning disability and autism with the necessary support to move from school into independent adulthood.
	Autism Sunday was established to highlight the need to understand autism, and was one of the first global events of its kind. It was launched in 2002 here in the United Kingdom, with an historic service at St. Paul’s cathedral. The size of the issue cannot be underestimated. In my own borough, the London borough of Havering, it is estimated that there are over 1,412 adults on the autism spectrum. Nationally, there are over 750,000 people with autism, and it is estimated that there are up to 65 million people with autism around the world.

Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining a debate on this important subject. Does he agree that alongside Autism Sunday, initiatives such as the world autism awareness week, which is from 2 to 8 April this year, are pretty important? Does he welcome what the National Autistic Society is doing in that week—launching a public awareness campaign, because it is important that we continue to increase awareness of autism, and understanding among the general public, particularly as the incidence seems to be on the increase?

Andrew Rosindell: I thank my right hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. Of course, we can work in our constituencies to make people aware of the effects of autism, but national organisations such as the National Autistic Society are doing a brilliant job of promoting more understanding of the issue across the United Kingdom.

Jim Shannon: May I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House for consideration? A large number of my constituents also have autism or autistic children. About 2,000 children in Northern Ireland have been waiting more than 20 months for a diagnosis. It is clear to me as an elected representative, and probably to the hon. Gentleman as well, that early diagnosis is critical if children are to get the correct treatment and the help they need. Does he agree that greater priority needs to be given to autism diagnosis, especially given the rising number of autistic children and adults across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Andrew Rosindell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: more needs to be invested in diagnosis. I commend him on the work he is doing in Northern Ireland to ensure that there is more awareness of this condition.
	Autism Sunday was founded by British autism campaigners and committed Christians, Ivan and Charika Corea, who live in Buckhurst Hill, in Essex. It began as a small acorn of an idea, hatched in their front room, but today it has grown into a major global event celebrated in many countries throughout the world. This year, it will take place this coming weekend, on Sunday 14 February.
	Our own Prime Minister has personally supported Autism Sunday, stating:
	“I would like to express my support for Autism Sunday. As many as one in a hundred people could be affected by some form of autism, and it is important that we recognise and raise awareness of the difficulties and challenges that they can face.”
	Autism Sunday is now a permanent fixture in my constituency. Ivan Corea is a teacher at the Frances Bardsley Academy For Girls. When he joined the school in 2009, he set about creating awareness of autism, not only in the school, but across the whole of our local community in Havering.
	In January this year, that culminated in a very special event in Havering town hall, when the mayor of Havering, Councillor Brian Eagling, and the leader of Havering Council, Councillor Roger Ramsey, presented a civic award to the Frances Bardsley Academy For Girls autism and disabilities club and to the school’s autism ambassadors, many of whom are here today watching our proceedings, for reaching out to the most vulnerable sections of society in our local community.
	The club has been working in partnership with local autism campaigners Ade and Ronke Ogunleye, who run the RIEES Autism Club based at the Romford Baptist church. That work has received praise from the leader of the council, Councillor Roger Ramsey, who stated:
	“To my memory, there has never been such a successful relationship between a secondary school and a local charity regarding autism in this borough and the FBA”—
	Frances Bardsley Academy—
	“Ambassador Programme has been of supreme service to the community. Through volunteering in the community, members have helped support those with autism, as well as their parents and carers, who are often just as much in need of support.”
	The Frances Bardsley autism and disabilities club has been working closely with the Step Up To Serve charity, whose patron is His Royal Highness Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales. Charlotte Hill, the chief executive officer of the charity, which is running the #iwill campaign, said:
	“We are delighted that the Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls Autism & Disabilities Club has pledged to support our work, and shared their progress during #iwill week to inspire others to take part also. If we are to make involvement in social action the norm for 10-20 year-olds we need partners to commit to tangible actions just as they are doing. The involvement of the FBA Autism Ambassadors of the Autism & Disabilities Club will undoubtedly help us progress towards our goal.”
	I must pay tribute to the school’s headteacher, Julian Dutnall, who was recently presented with a special award by RIEES for showing outstanding leadership in promoting charitable giving at the school. Frances Bardsley has a thriving charity committee raising funds for a number of local, national and international charities, and Julian Dutnall has talked about the need for students to give back to the community and the need to show compassionate leadership to the most vulnerable sections of our society.
	The chair of governors of Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls is the Rev. Father Roderick Hingley, who also serves as priest of the church of St. Alban Protomartyr in Romford. He has been hugely supportive of Autism Sunday. When Ivan Corea approached Father Hingley with regard to establishing the first ever Havering Autism Sunday service at St.Alban’s church in 2010, he saw the need to reach out to parents, carers and the autism community, and agreed to host the annual service. I have witnessed at first hand the moving partnership between the Frances Bardsley autism ambassadors from the sixth form and young people with autism—surely a model of how a school can make an impact in this area.
	All this work has certainly helped to act as a catalyst for change in the London borough of Havering. Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls is fully behind Autism Sunday 2016. Indeed, class 7E created school history by organising the first ever year 7 assembly on Autism Sunday, finishing with a flourish as they sang the Nimal Mendis song for autism, “Open Every Door”. In so doing, they have raised much more awareness of the condition with their peers. I would also like to mention the assistant headteacher, Julie Payne, who has led school assemblies on the importance of Autism Sunday, and music teacher Amy Johnson and the Frances Bardsley chamber choir, who always perform on Autism Sunday and will do so this year,.
	As the MP for Romford, I am immensely proud of what has been achieved so far, but there is still a long way to go before all adults with autism start receiving the care and support they need. For example, in a recent National Autistic Society survey, 70% of adults with autism said that they are not receiving the help they need from social services. Furthermore, only 23% of those who did have contact with social workers felt that they had a good understanding of the condition and its effects. This must change. The Government’s current review of the implementation of the strategy is a unique opportunity to urge local authorities and Ministers to ensure that they live up to their commitments.
	Times are challenging, but that must not be used as an excuse for failing to meet obligations to adults with autism and their families. With the right support, many adults with autism can work for and participate in their communities. Difficulties in communication and social interaction might mean that someone with autism finds it hard to find and keep a steady job. They might find it challenging to prepare a CV, or find that they need support in preparing for an interview. Moreover, once they have a job, they might find it difficult to work with people who do not understand the complexities of their condition.
	A number of barriers to successful implementation of the autism strategy have been identified. The good news is that there will be simple yet effective solutions to these challenges. For example, an innovation fund would support local authorities to improve the services currently available to adults with autism and help them to develop an understanding of the best way to deliver services and highlight areas of best practice. An autism awareness scheme would also allow volunteers and community groups to tap into resources that would help them to develop a programme of autism awareness and training in their local areas. That can be achieved in the simplest of ways, through things such as adaptations to public buildings and local businesses, autism awareness training for front-line staff in public services and more autism-friendly activities.
	I conclude by urging the Minister to consider my proposals. In so doing, I commend to the House the work of the Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls autism and disabilities club and the important concept of Autism Sunday, which is a beacon of light and compassionate leadership in action in my constituency, reaching out to those who need that support most of all.

Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on obtaining the debate. As chair of the all-party group on autism, I am privileged to have an insight into this area. I am glad to see my predecessor as chair of the all-party group, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), who has done so much work on autism, on the Front Bench next to the Minister.
	I congratulate Ivan Corea and the Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls, because initiatives such as theirs really help to demystify autism. It is important that we hear from the Minister how we can mark Autism Sunday and Autism Awareness Week in Parliament. I am proud of the fact that when we hold APPG events, we try to make admission to Parliament autism-friendly. We put aside a silent space where people can feel calm, and we have made the Serjeant at Arms and all who usher people into this place aware of the little things that can make life much more comfortable for people with autism.
	Too many families and individuals still experience judgmental attitudes or face isolation or unemployment, because of the misunderstandings that surround autism. Although 99% of the public say that they are aware of autism, an astonishing 87% of people who are affected by autism do not think that the public have a good enough understanding of it, and more needs to be done to deepen that understanding. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford has done a great deal tonight, and so have his constituents, who may be listening to the debate. May they go from strength to strength, and may they bring about more awareness of autism with their wonderful work.

Edward Timpson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this important debate. He has afforded the House the opportunity to raise awareness of autism and mark Autism Sunday in Parliament, albeit on a Wednesday. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, Autism Sunday is an event with worldwide recognition, as well as being a permanent fixture in his own constituency. That is a fantastic achievement, of which Ivan and Charika Corea, who have grown the event since 2002, should be proud.
	I commend Ivan Corea for his promotion of autism awareness in Romford through his work at the Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls, his role in creating FBA autism ambassadors and the #Iwill campaign, which I know well. Such local partnership working is vital if we are to change the lives of people with autism, to ensure that they achieve and lead fulfilling, happy lives. It was uplifting to hear about the incredible impact that Corea’s vision has had in and around Romford, and I am sure that it reverberates much further.
	As we have heard, autism is a lifelong condition that affects how a person communicates and relates to people around them. As a result, people right across society, from school teachers and bus drivers to general practitioners, need to be aware of autism and what it means for those who live with it.
	I will start by outlining the framework that is in place to improve the lives of people with autism. Since the Autism Act 2009, which was spearheaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan)—I thank her for reminding us that world autism awareness week is from 2 to 8 April—the 2010 cross-Government autism strategy was updated by the “Think Autism” strategy in 2014 and new statutory guidance in 2015. The aim of all of this work was further to improve the care and support that local authorities and NHS organisations provide for people with autism.
	“Think Autism” placed greater emphasis on involvement and awareness within the local community and on ways of looking differently at support and engagement. That is very much what is happening in Romford, as we have heard. It moved the original vision of the strategy on, including to an increased focus on areas such as young people, criminal justice and employment.
	The reason why we have kept up the momentum is that there is more to do to ensure that all those with autism get the help and support that they need. Last month, we published a progress report, which is designed to challenge local partners delivering a wide range of services, such as health, education, children’s services, adult services and transport to “Think Autism”. With over 500,000 people in England estimated to have autism, this was done for a very good reason: because it matters.
	These organisations and services come into contact with people on the autistic spectrum daily. By engaging with them effectively, we can ensure that such people do not miss out on accessing services and support. By doing so, we can bring about a positive influence on their mental and physical health. That is why it is so important that the Department of Health is continuing to make autism a top priority for the NHS. The NHS mandate sets the priorities for the NHS, and signals what the Department of Health will hold the NHS accountable for. Next year, it will include an important call on the NHS to reduce health inequality for autistic people.
	In launching “Think Autism”, we wanted to promote innovation and awareness, and we made available over £4 million to do just that. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford rightly argued strongly for a further drive on innovation in how we deliver services for people with autism. Until last year, the Department of Health ran an innovation fund of £1 million to promote innovative local ideas, services or projects that could help people in their communities. Forty-two projects were chosen, with a focus on people with autism who do not qualify for social care support. The projects focused on four key areas: advice and mentoring, gaining and growing skills for independence, early intervention and crisis prevention, and support into employment.
	Some £3 million has been given out in capital funding to councils, so that they can make public spaces, such as inquiry offices and libraries, more autism-friendly, and provide IT and technology to make life easier for people with autism. For example, in the London Borough of Havering in my hon. Friend’s constituency, funding was allocated to improve autism-friendly safe spaces, allowing people with autism greater access to Romford town centre. I know that that is an opportunity that he would not want anybody to miss.
	As a Minister in the Department for Education, I have a particular focus on the education of children and young people with autism. A key part of that are our recent fundamental reforms to the new nought-to-25, family-centred, outcomes-focused special educational needs and disability system. We have made changes to the law to ensure we provide the support that children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities require. The work I have seen so far, which is putting families at the heart of the process, is in many ways inspiring, but we know that we still need to do more to engender the culture shift necessary to achieve that end. I am pleased that we were recently able to announce an additional £80 million to boost support for children with special educational needs and disabilities during the next financial year to help to ensure that our reforms have real impact on the ground, including for children and young people with autism.
	We are doing specific work to help to support children and young people with autism. First, we want to ensure that all education staff are able to recognise and support children with autism in schools. We have therefore funded the Autism Education Trust from 2011 to 2016 to provide training for early years, school and further education staff. To date, the AET has provided training for about 87,000 education staff. I know that the trust is aiming to reach the milestone of 100,000 trained staff this summer. I hope that I will be able to celebrate that achievement with it.
	Secondly, we know that young people with autism can find dealing with change particularly hard, so it is important that they make a successful transition from school to post-16 provision. We have therefore funded the Ambitious about Autism charity from 2013 to this year to develop an innovative, integrated model of transition support. That model enables more young people with complex autism and learning difficulties to access further education and training beyond school, helping them more successfully to move on to adult life and work.
	We know that a disproportionate number of children with autism are excluded from school. As a result, we have funded the National Autistic Society to provide families with information and advice on exclusion and alternative provision, and to support education professionals with advice and guidance on early intervention to reduce the risk of exclusion.
	Finally in relation to children and young people, the expansion of the Government’s free schools programme has benefited many children with special educational needs and, specifically, with autism. Several specialist autism free schools have opened, including Church Lawton School, which is near my constituency in Cheshire. There are 11 more free special schools in the pipeline, of which seven are specifically for children with autism. That demonstrates the demand and desire of parents and charities that we meet that need and offer a truly outstanding education for autistic children.

Jim Shannon: I applaud the initiative that has been taken by Sunderland football club, although they are not my team, to provide a small room in the stadium where autistic children can go with their parents and enjoy the football match, without the noise that disaffects them. That initiative clearly helps autistic children. Would the Minister encourage other premier league football teams and, indeed, all football teams to do likewise?

Edward Timpson: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. The Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People has worked hard with the premier league and football clubs to improve the facilities for and awareness of people with disabilities, whether they be physical, mental or otherwise, at football grounds. There is clearly more that can be done. Clubs such as Sunderland are taking the lead and showing what can be done. With a little bit of thought, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, we can go a long way. I encourage every club to look at what Sunderland is doing and to make such easy but important adjustments, so that they can fill the seats in their stadium, which Sunderland has struggled to do this season.
	In addition to what we are doing at the Department for Education, my colleagues right across Government are thinking autism. They are doing more to raise awareness of autism and to provide support across a range of Government services. The National Autistic Society is doing excellent work in this area. We wish to support other charities in their endeavours through the strong partnerships that are needed.
	The Department of Health has funded Autism Alliance UK to undertake an awareness campaign that seeks to dispel the myths around autism, which still exist all too readily, as well as to improve training, create employment and make reasonable adjustments in how everyday services are provided for people with autism. The alliance is working with local and national businesses, and with providers of services in the private, public and voluntary sectors. In my hon. Friend’s county of Essex, the awareness work has involved another football club, Colchester United, which is having an indifferent season, the Essex County Council equality and diversity service, and councillors in Chelmsford, so it is really starting to reverberate around Essex.
	Autism Alliance UK is also working to improve knowledge and awareness of autism in the Department for Work and Pensions by, for example, building an autism network across Jobcentre Plus by training nominated autism leads, including work coaches and dedicated employment advisers.
	To build knowledge and expertise among health professionals, the Department of Health has provided financial support to the Royal College of General Practitioners’ clinical priorities programme on autism, which is undertaking practical work on autism awareness and training for GPs. Health Education England has developed the online MindED portal, which contains learning resources for enhancing the effectiveness of working with children, young people and young adults who are on the autistic spectrum.
	Last year, the Department of Health also provided funding to a number of organisations, including the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Social Care Institute for Excellence and the National Autistic Society to upgrade their autism e-learning training tools and materials. Those tools will assist GPs, social workers, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Romford mentioned, clinicians and nurses. The intention is to enable the training to have a direct impact on the quality and effectiveness of the services they provide. As a result of building staff capabilities on autism awareness, there will be better outcomes for people with autism and their families.
	The Ministry of Justice must play its part, too. It is working to achieve better awareness of autism in the criminal justice system, for victims, witnesses and perpetrators of crime. For example, my hon Friend the Minister for Prisons, Probation, Rehabilitation and Sentencing wrote to prisons last year to encourage them to apply for the National Autistic Society’s autism accreditation. Under the pilot, several prisons are currently in the process of working towards accreditation, and by October 2015 a further 20 prisons had expressed their interest.
	Finally, Disability Matters is a Department of Health-funded e-learning tool to provide training in understanding and supporting the needs of people with a disability, and it will help those with autism, too.
	As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, from this short summary, there is a raft of activity going on to ensure that, across Government, we are “thinking autism” and raising awareness, alongside other events such as Autism Sunday. Our mission is to help people with autism to fulfil their potential, to have full, happy lives and to live as independently as possible. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Romford in embracing Autism Sunday and the golden chance it gives us to raise these issues in Romford and beyond, and I look forward to working with him on this further as we continue to work to improve the lives of all those with autism in our society.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Immigration

That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 11 January, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 313, Noes 67.

Question accordingly agreed to.